Thoughts for discussion on the future of CS

[Jason Petho]

Although incomplete, here are some things I would like to see implemented.

What do you think? Additions? Comments?


____________________________________

Enhancements I would like to see as created from a Designer/Player (monster sized scenarios) Point of View.

A. General

1. Combine all the games into one large game spanning from 1914 to somewhere in the near future.

2. Combine all games into one easily updateable version that is compatible on all operating systems, Mac too maybe?

3. Maintain support: technical or otherwise

4. Improve the Programmed Opponent!!

5. Improve the Dynamic Campaigns!!


B. Editors


1. Organizations/Order of Battles.

• Revise the current .oob files to include all the latest revisions.

• Expand the number of nations to include all relevant nations as individual nations. For example, Canada as Canada and not part of the UK.

• Expand the time frame availabilities as mentioned above.

• The ability to Drag and Drop for the editor! This would be ideal for some of the large order of battles I work on.

• Add all new units and adjust coding to suit the new units to work efficiently. (ie: ships, recce aircraft, supply units, trains, kampfgruppe HQs, etc)




2. Map Editor


• Combine all map templates into one, giving the option of being able to create a map displaying anywhere in the world.

• Increase the number of special buildings, terrain types, terrain tiles, etc

• The ability to import a base map in either jpg or bmp with the options of being able to resize and rotate it to suit.

• The ability to change the colour of the hex number labels to something other that white. It is hard on the eyes!!

• More elevations levels

• LOS button with variable distance



3. Scenario Editor


• A SHIFT or ALT ability to place and move units about the map by selecting a HQ and all subordinate units would move to a chosen location. Would make moving Divisions around much, much simpler.

• The ability for the designer to set changes during the course of a scenario in visibility, supply levels, weather, terrain status, etc

• An EVENT Editor! IF X,Y Hex is captured, THEN add reinforcement, etc. Endless possibilities for this!

• Add/Remove additional tiles. Hex side anti tank ditches, increase the number of destroyed tiles, add burning foliage/buildings tiles

• Add/Remove shell craters

• Add/Remove damage roads/rails, etc

• New features such as die roll for vehicle breakdowns (reducing 1SP) dependent on time of year, location, supply status, etc etc.



4. A NEW Unit Editor


• A new GUI unit editor allowing one to easily create and add new units to the game. With this one should be able to adjust all the values, add bmps, add unit text information, etc.
• Make all unit information consistent utilizing mm – km/h – kg , etc


C. IN GAME


1. Utilize the old East Front assault routines which allow disrupted units a stronger chance to survive an assault.

2. Increase VPs of halftracks – as done for PB#2

3. Add moveable aircraft which will overfly all terrain types, regardless of elevation change

4. Allow the player to decide the type of unit bases they wish to use.

5. Enhances engineer types and capabilities. In addition: road/rail repair, build trenches/bunkers, build hexside bridges of various levels, build pontoon bridges, build antitank ditches, build roadblocks, destroy special buildings, etc

6. Limit number of retreats or remove the retreats altogether except during assaults maintaining the reduction in morale and if 0 is reached, the unit is destroyed.

7. The ability to combine/split transport in the same organization level (company/battalion)

8. Alter the unit facing system. In my opinion there should be a penalty for being attacked from the rear or side – for any unit – but I do not think the way it is portrayed in the present Campaign Series is the best way to do so.

9. Enhance Recce capabilities for Recce units – there is little to none at the moment

10. Artillery – redo the whole works. Incorporate FO’s. Incorporate counter battery fire. Etc.

11. The ability to reassign units IN GAME to other HQ’s to form kampfgruppes.

12. Have all 0 assault units increased to 1, changing the code where 1 cannot assault but can counter-assault when being assaulted.

13. For larger scenarios, the ability for SP recovery for infantry/vehicle types. Maintenance units, medical units.

[John Given]

Excellent ideas Jason. I've not heard, nor read many of these before. I think my favorite section of your is near the bottom, C: In GAME

EDIT: Just read the thread about Matrix games...wow!! They look just like the ones to do make these kinds of fixes. I didn't realize earlier that they were going to re-release the entire series. This is indeed a boon to the CS, and makes me realize why you posted Jason - you want these changes implemented (and so do I!!).

Even if Matrix doesn't change the game code, the DG-Vietnam people have shown that many changes can be written into the game by those who know what they're doing. My main concern is that many features and fixtures of the CS may be 'hard coded' into the game, and cannot be changed. This is the problem we (my friends at another forum) had when trying to mod 'Sea Dogs.' You would have to acquire the raw game code from whoever owns the rights to the game (don't hold your breath).

If it could be done though, I'm all for it.

To wit, I have a few ideas that I 'stole' from Avalon Hills' Panzerblitz/Panzer Leader/Arab-Israeli Wars that I think should be added:

1. Implement artillery field-of-fire rules: Towed guns are not very maneuverable when emplaced for firing. Require guns less than 88mm to spend action points to change direction. 88mm and larger guns would require a carrier in the hex (with at least as many sp's) to change facing, and BOTH would expend action points to change direction.

2. Wreck removal rule: allow fully tracked, non-carrier units units the ability, when beginning the turn adjacent to a 'wreck' hex, the ability to expend all action points to remove a number of wrecks equal to the sp's of the 'removal' units.

3. Engineer block creation: since engineers were equipped with demolitions, allow them to create a block in any hex that contains a forest, swamp, village, suburb, city, building, ruins, industrial, and orchard. The procedure for creating would equal that chance of damaging a wall or bridge. A successful check creates a block in the engineers hex. (this is my little clarification on the tidbit you already mentioned Jason)

4. Allow engineers to place mines. That player would have a number of 'mine points' at the beginning of a scenario. The procedure would be the reverse of removing them. Also, engineers should be given an option of whether they want to remove mines/blocks (such as when the mines/blocks are yours!)

P.S. Panzerblitz/Panzer Leader/Arab-Israeli Wars touched on creating other positional defenses during the game, along with creating simple/pontoon bridges. It's been a long time since I've read it, but roughly, it takes 5 turns (cumulative) for every weight class bridge. Creating a trench would take even longer. I can't imagine how long it would take to create a bunker.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. :)

[Big Ivan]

Excellent ideas gentlemen.

For my comments to this wonderful thread I'd like to say:

Also consider splitting of units for infantry platoons into sections say 2 or 3 sections per 6 strength point platoon. With this you could have some type of low level leader creation also.

Wrecks is another issue in that you can destroy 200 trucks and there is no wreck. I like the idea of 1 wreck per three trucks destroyed or something along those lines.

You touched on CB fire and artillery overhaul. I like those ideas possibly incorporating artillery fire throughout the turn. There is a lot that needs to be done here with the artillery. I'd like to see pre-emptive bombardment before a scenario comes up and rollong barrages in a sceanrio!

More terrain tiles like special buildings, brush, light woods, medium woods/forest and heavy woods/forest. All with their special terrain movement penalties. Burning terrain is also a good idea. Rubble creation during a scenario and movement penalties for vehicles in shellholes. I think the minor rivers need to be a little wider than currently depicted. Consider in and out of gullies and not just movement penalties. AT ditches need to be included in all games. Your ideas on engineers are just great! Possibly destroying bridges with artillery fire or pre-emptive bombardment.

Add night combat to WF!!!! In night combat in general need to consider random movement and infiltration!

In the oob need to have leaders already incorporated into units as this would greatly reduce setup time. Each nationality could have like a standard leader pool changing with the years of the war. My idea would be like when you pick an oob you could hit a leader pool button and leaders would be incorporated automatically at battalion/regiment/brigade and division level. Smaller units would have to be incorporated manually. How about FO's for coordinating artillery fire!

Capturing vehicles in a scenario would be neat. Also handling captured prisoners. They should also consider non-combatants like civilians and refuges clogging the roads! If you kill these units there could be some type of penalty structure setup.

The whole weather issue needs to be changed as weather can change during a course of a battle along with visability. Consider light mud and mud. Rainstorms. Consider ground snow, medium snow and heavy snow. With heavy snow your road and overland movement goes right out the window! Dust in the desert and sun position for glare factor.

In the scenario editor plotting artillery fire for the first turn is needed. Also a range indicator is needed. Also consider counter-boring fire and pre-plotting to a designated hex with lethal effect!

In creating a random sceanrio leaders are needed. As you said the AI needs to be redone to make dynamic campaign games more realistic. Also the AI needs to be more agressive and coordinate its forces better.

I'm starting to ramble a bit here so I better stop. In close we've got some great ideas here that we need to get to the right people if CS will go to the next level.

Thanks for your comments and the thread!

Big Ivan :)

[Abatis]

Hi Guys, here are my thoughts on this, some cut and paste from an earlier thread with some additions:

Please add snipers (I would suggest having an allotment of sniper missions(representing teams) like star shells or smoke, and you plot them in a certain hex say within command range of any friendly HQ -no chit counter(can you tell I'm a 2D guy? LOL) would exist for the sniper, though an icon of some sort would be needed to mark the spot. -If enemy soft units moves into the hex, the sniper team causes auto -disruption and has a chance of killing leaders, and a small chance of a 1sp reduction to other soft targets. Within rifle range and in LOS, it should have a chance of taking out leaders still and inflicting disruption. They can be eliminated by an assault against the hex(automatic elimination) or, if no forces can be brought to bear against it for assault, the side deploying the sniper can move the mission to any hex that a regular infantry unit can get to and start again. Or leave it in place if they choose.

Also -what about a "locked in melee" possible result for assaults? It has always seemed odd to me that every assault can be resolved in 6 minutes(whining about this in play testing did no good -Charlie K. told me there wasn't much impetus to mess with the code which is what it would take to allow opposing units to be in the same hex...but if you guys are doing it *anyway*....?)

I think also that ANY hard unit(not talking carrier HT's of course) should be able to assault Pill Boxes; not every assault is supposed to represent an over run. I've read plenty of accounts of driving tanks right up to pillboxes and basically blasting them point blank from inches away -something not represented by the current system with a 250 sq. meter hex...

Urban sewer movement: handle like caves in RS

Russian Human Wave attacks -handle similarly to Banzai attacks-minus the assault factor. What I mean is: make them immune to disruption(this I say to deal with a game mechanic, as I realize "disruption" would occur throughout the charge, yet they need to beable to keep advancing forward despite the horrific losses)and retreat results when initiated. It would take a leader/commisar being in command range to perform the attack. They should pay standard movement costs, and get no attack bonus. This rule is just to keep the Russian infantry moving forward with an abstracted machine gun pointed at their backs.

The ability to detach squads and vehicles from the platoon. (Individual vehicles would make the strangely popular "armor facing option" actually make some sense, as it does not now given the game scale. I qaulify that with a resounding IMHO(though it wasn;'t just mine -Bob McNamara didn't like it either as I recall, but caved to the wishes of the forum at Jim Rose's behest-or atleast I seem to remember it that way from the emails. Apologies if I am wrong)

I pretty much agree with everybodies' ideas so far, with this caveat: The suggested expanded role Engineers. As it is, 6 minutes seems like a ridiculously short amount of time for a platoon to flag a path(it's a misnomer to think they are actually clearing the mines here folks)through a mine field. It would be impossible to lay a field in that time. Bridges are questionable too IMHO. The laying of mines and setting of charges for bridges are generally "pre battle" tasks. Not to say that it never happened in the fighting(meaning bridges specifically). It SHOULD take a realistic amount of time to perform these tasks however -which would often encompass most of the game. As for engineers and pillboxes, aren't their assault factors already multiplied when attacking them(and bunkers)? That would seem to me to be enough for that by abstracting their ability to put a hole in these things, though special buildings and IP's and trenches should be handles the same.

I totally agree with seperating engineer smoke from artillery smoke and limiting eng. smoke to 1 or 2 missions per scenario. Should an out of HQ range eng. platoon even beable to draw off of the current smoke allotment? If so, do they have it all with them -what about the arty then? Definitely seperate them- that's a good idea!

I'm sure there are more things, but I have got to get some turns out. Got all the RS and EF turns from my backlog out yesterday, now for WF...

[Krink]

As tedious as this may seem....I would like it that when a unit is moved from a hex, then that units sighting is removed immediatly. You kill a guy lets say...but he still has sighting for the rest if the turn. Does it really take 6 minutes to die and still radio in the findings or however long a turn is supposed to simulate?

The ability to be able to decide if double timing is worth it. It's too late after you hit double time to find out the unit can't go where you want it to, or still be able to assault a hex. I'm sure there's a way to figure it out doing lots of math after hitting the f2 button. But it would be better if there was a quick way to see whet your unit is capable of after hitting double time. Am I lazy or what?

Thats it for now. I'll probably think of something else in the middle of a game, and then forget it later.

Cheers,
Ray
.

[Gnrl Confusion]

Women. Don't forget women.

[Krink]

Here is another issue I have. With armour facing effects on....it seems to be abit of a disadvantage for the player whose tank(s) retreat after being shot at. Why have the tank turn around to retreat. Why shouldn't it just backup, like a tank driver would do in a real battle, not turn around and expose the weaker armour of the rear. I know you can turn armour facing effects off....but I feel that makes certain tanks just too damn powerful. Imagine trying to take out a tiger with a t-34 or two, and never getting a rear shot?

Cheers,
Ray

[John Given]

Hey Krink, I'm pretty sure there is a mod over at the blitz that causes a retreating vehicle to back up. This mod (which name I cannot remember - possibly the Russian balance mod) was part of a much larger mod that incorporated a great many changes to the russians - lowered # of attack pts. needed to fire, increased attack factors of many russian units, etc. I experimented with it last spring. Sadly, I ended up UNinstalling it after barely a day, because it gave too many advantages to russian forces, whist giving none to germans, causing major game imbalances.

You might want to poke around over there and give this mod a whirl if you want. As I said, I can't remember the name of it, but the description is very vivid and you'll know immediately if it's the one I'm talking about. (assuming the mod hasn't been removed) T'would seem to me that a scenario created with this mod in mind would be very interesting and highly entertaining, but such scens would have to be created from scratch, one by one. Also, I've scoured the EF II scen database over there, and I have never found a single scen designed with this mod in mind.

I'll say this - the guy who designed it *really* wants those russkies to win!

The mod is for East Front II only. (obviously)

:)

[Big Ivan]

Krink

Right on with the armor facing rules. They should be allowed to backup instead of retreating with their rears hanging in the wind. Along those line with armor, riders need ability to immediately dismount with incoming fire! To many times my riders have gotten clobbered because they are still on the tanks. Granted there should be some lost penaty but not as stiff as it is.

Also not sure if this was mentioned but I'll go ahead anyways, engineers need ability to blow major river bridges. Along with this, bunkers and pill boxes should be reduced to some lesser value if assaulted or hit with 16" shell fire. Depending on the assault value, the reduction could be a mathematical progression. With concentrated 16" shell fire there would be damn little left save for only the strongest of pill boxes.

Did anyone mention artillery ammo trucks? As it sits right now, artillery has all the ammo it needs with no account taken for difficulties in moving up 6 tons of ammo per battery!

There also needs to be some ZOC rule with movement penalty for driving vehicles or running infantry past enemy units. The players know when a unit has shot it's wad but the units don't know. In real combat real units don't know either or at least are unsure.

Thanks
Big Ivan

[Krink]

Good points Ivan. Those bunkers are a real ***** to crack sometimes.

I would like to see engineers have the ability to repair a bridge also.

Cheers,
Ray

[Blackcloud6]

1. Have artillery mechanics that reflect the doctrnes and capabilities of the historical armies and for particular time period.

For example- Russians would have to use mostly pre-planned fires or specifically desginated FOs that would be pretty much immobile. No more ATR units calling in artillery.

I think artillery is the most historically inaccurate part of the current game.

2. recon unit rules where they can use some form of stealth movement (possibly a 2 to 4 times cost) so they can move into a postion and recon and be harder to spot and be able to others abit easier than regular units.