CS MODs

Jason Petho

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2002
Messages
583
Reaction score
5
Location
Calgary, AB, Canada
Country
llCanada
Fozzey said:
Hi Jason
Please excuse my ignorance by what do you mean "firing" a chosen unit at another chosen unit? Would this be the equivalent to a charge? What about siege weapons such as catapults and trebuchets, would it be possible to represent such weapons?
Hi Fozzey!

"firing at a chosen unit" I was thinking could be opposing units, adjacent to each other, would "fire" (as units do now) at each other spending X amount of APs to do so. Of course, it's an abstract way of showing sword-play, but could be done.

For units that have javelins, etc, their range could be extended beyond the 1-hex firing capability, as they have distance to their weapons. Problem here would be representing ammunition - how many javelins are available.

Catapults could be shown, as direct fire artillery - or even indirect. Trebuchets would be a little more difficult to portray, mainly because of the lack of Arc of Fire in the CS engine. This could be compensated for "in-house" rules though.

Anything is possible!

In theory anyways

Take care and good luck
Jason Petho
 

Krink

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2002
Messages
385
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan
Country
llCanada
Wolf said:
Jason, that is exactly my experience, you can change it during the replay but your timing has to be spot on.

Actually...you can setup what view you want to have at the startup of each game(I forget where, but it's in a drop down menu on the right), and that should solve the intial part of the replay anyways. As for switching during the replay....good luck. It is a real pain. I would like to have the disrupted units displayed during replay for pbem....but I gave up trying to get that on while the replay is running.

As for changes in the game....I would like to see the artillery be more effective, but I'm sure that is an engine issue. I would also like the unit that is firing during a replay to showup better. My eyes must be getting old and weary, cause sometimes I just can't see where the shots are coming from. The civil war idea sounds great also. What about WWI? Greater ability for the engineers, like placing mines or building bridges would also be cool. I'nm sure I'm getting into engine issues again, so I better shut up!

Thanks for your interest and hard work Jason. Great input from everybody so far.

Cheers,
Ray
 
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
41
Reaction score
1
Location
Houston, Texas
Country
llUnited States
Jason Petho said:
Hi all

Question -

What kinds of CS MODs would you like to see?

Keeping in mind no change in the game engine.

Take care and good luck
Jason Petho
My impression is that in the CS artillery is unrealistically weak. I guess this can be handled by tweaking unit values.

Russian units are too likely to retreat. Perhaps an adjustment in morale rather than an engine change?

Rocket launchers have an unrealistic rate of fire. They need more rapid fire followed by turns of inactivity. Not sure if this can be fixed outside of an engine change.
 

Big Ivan

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2002
Messages
166
Reaction score
0
Location
State of Ohio
Hey Jason

Don't mean to step back a bit but this needs to be said.

Not sure if this mod was mentioned but system badly needs night fighting mod similar to EFII & RS for west front!

A while back I downloaded all the mods you need for this at the Blitz but I'm sorry to say the 1.06 mod for West Front doesn't work. It badly fouls up the unit box icon graphics.
Also consider blowing major hex bridges and like someone else said creating rubble during the game play. Another consideration would be TEM benifts for infantry in shellholes and increased movement penalty for vehicles in shellholes.

Since your on the subject of mods ACW sounds great. How about Italy & Ethopia pre WWII plus 1930's Spanish Civil War. Also please consider American Revolution or War of 1812!

Thanks Jason

Cheers
Big Ivan ;)
 
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
41
Reaction score
1
Location
Houston, Texas
Country
llUnited States
Oh, yeah - It would be nice to have some sort of untility that would combine transport units operating at partial strength into full-strength units. Darn frustrating not to be able to load a five-step unit when you have a two-step truck and a three step truck nearby. The only option you have now is to save the scenario, edit it, and resume.
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
297
Reaction score
0
Location
Hewitt, New Jersey
Country
llUnited States
Hi guys,

Seems to me I've seen this mentioned in the past, but I'll risk repeating it here. I'd like to see a modification to the engineer units that would allow them to lay mines and construct bridges. I think it would add a lot to the strategy level of the scenarios.
 

SoccerDJ

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
552
Reaction score
6
Location
On your left flank..
Country
ll
Gnrl Confusion said:
Hi guys,

Seems to me I've seen this mentioned in the past, but I'll risk repeating it here. I'd like to see a modification to the engineer units that would allow them to lay mines and construct bridges. I think it would add a lot to the strategy level of the scenarios.
I agree this would make the stratagy for the defender alot more interesting:)
 

Jason Petho

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2002
Messages
583
Reaction score
5
Location
Calgary, AB, Canada
Country
llCanada
Gnrl Confusion said:
Hi guys,

Seems to me I've seen this mentioned in the past, but I'll risk repeating it here. I'd like to see a modification to the engineer units that would allow them to lay mines and construct bridges. I think it would add a lot to the strategy level of the scenarios.
Krink said:
Greater ability for the engineers, like placing mines or building bridges would also be cool.
I agree, these are excellent suggestions. Unfortunately - without the use a game master - these aren't possible to do without significant engine changes. I wish I knew how to correct this, but I'm without knowledge.


Big Ivan said:
Don't mean to step back a bit but this needs to be said.

Not sure if this mod was mentioned but system badly needs night fighting mod similar to EFII & RS for west front!

I agree, it should be included. My understanding though is that there is a program that needs to be run on the scenarios in order for them to work with the night mod. Once the scenarios are run in the program they are uneditable. Not at a good thing, in my opinion.

Again, I've been wrong before.


HoustonAerosFan said:
My impression is that in the CS artillery is unrealistically weak. I guess this can be handled by tweaking unit values.
I agree!!!! One thing I don't understand with the CS artillery values is that they reduce in effectiveness the further away they are. One would think that a 210mm shell would explode the same way at 500 metres and at 10,000 metres. Or am I missing something? This would be easy to 'correct', assuming I could get everyone to agree.


HoustonAerosFan said:
Russian units are too likely to retreat. Perhaps an adjustment in morale rather than an engine change?
Yes, just requires a morale change. I wish the game system would include Experience. CS sees experience as part of the morale.

HoustonAerosFan said:
Rocket launchers have an unrealistic rate of fire. They need more rapid fire followed by turns of inactivity. Not sure if this can be fixed outside of an engine change.
Very true. Apart from house rules, I don't think you can change it without an engine modification. Out of my league unfortunately.

HoustonAerosFan said:
Oh, yeah - It would be nice to have some sort of untility that would combine transport units operating at partial strength into full-strength units. Darn frustrating not to be able to load a five-step unit when you have a two-step truck and a three step truck nearby.
True. On the other hand, it teaches one to keep their trucks out of harms way.


HoustonAerosFan said:
The only option you have now is to save the scenario, edit it, and resume.
One would hope you don't do this during PBEM?


Keep the ideas coming guys!

Thank you!

Take care and good luck
Jason Petho
 

SoccerDJ

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
552
Reaction score
6
Location
On your left flank..
Country
ll
Jason Petho said:
I agree!!!! One thing I don't understand with the CS artillery values is that they reduce in effectiveness the further away they are. One would think that a 210mm shell would explode the same way at 500 metres and at 10,000 metres. Or am I missing something? This would be easy to 'correct', assuming I could get everyone to agree.
That sounds like that would be a good thing to change also, I think its already been mention before but I think that the damge results on the terrain or building hexs needs to be more realistic.
 

Prester John

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
105
Reaction score
1
Location
Brisbane
Country
llAustralia
Remember that the loss in effectiveness is for the fire mission, not the shell. The shells will still land but more dispersed than your target so the damage to the target is reduced. I expect there should be nationality modifiers.
 

Jason Petho

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2002
Messages
583
Reaction score
5
Location
Calgary, AB, Canada
Country
llCanada
SoccerDJ said:
That sounds like that would be a good thing to change also, I think its already been mention before but I think that the damge results on the terrain or building hexs needs to be more realistic.
Soccer DJ,

Damage is displayed already for open hexes and village hexes.

There are three levels of damage for the open ground and for a village hex. The game displays the damage as a layer on top of the ground bmp - or in the case of a village, between the ground and village bmp.

DAMAGE VILLAGE
OPEN GROUND DAMAGE
OPEN GROUND

With the damage being displayed beneath the buildings, no structural damage can be represented.

Since the suburb and city bmps cover the entire hex, no damage is displayed.

Again, I've been wrong before.

Hope that helps
Take care and good luck
Jason Petho
 

Jason Petho

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2002
Messages
583
Reaction score
5
Location
Calgary, AB, Canada
Country
llCanada
Prester John said:
Remember that the loss in effectiveness is for the fire mission, not the shell. The shells will still land but more dispersed than your target so the damage to the target is reduced. I expect there should be nationality modifiers.

Therefore, one should have more drift as opposed to a loss in firepower, in my opinion. But since that will only work if the artillery is landing out of LOS, one could modify the artillery numbers to be representative of the nationality and their capabilities.

One would have an artillery barrage being having the same hitting power no matter what the range, but reduced or increased based on some modifier.

Question is, what are those modifiers?

A further house rule and new unit could be incorportated where as that artillery can only be plotted by a Forward Observer. If the FO is killed/captured... talk about havoc!

Just floating ideas.

Take care and good luck
Jason Petho
 

Prester John

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
105
Reaction score
1
Location
Brisbane
Country
llAustralia
Jason Petho said:
Therefore, one should have more drift as opposed to a loss in firepower, in my opinion. But since that will only work if the artillery is landing out of LOS, one could modify the artillery numbers to be representative of the nationality and their capabilities.

No. You are wrong in this view. The fire mission does not land with the same effect in a different grid square. It is spread over two (for the sake of a number) grid squares instead of one at long range and therefore does reduced damage to the target grid square.
 
Last edited:

Jason Petho

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2002
Messages
583
Reaction score
5
Location
Calgary, AB, Canada
Country
llCanada
Prester John said:
No. You are wrong in this view.
Woah! Good thing that's happened before! Might have been a shock to the system. LOL.. ;)


Prester John said:
The fire mission does not land with the same effect in a different grid square. It is spread over two (for the sake of a number) grid squares instead of one at long range and therefore does reduced damage to the target grid square.
That's kinda what I meant by drifting. How large would these grid squares be? Would the spread be that significant in the 250 metres to reduce in half the effectiveness of a sH36 150mm battery barrage between 1.5 kilometres and 9.5 kilometres.

Seems to me, as someone mentioned previously, the reduction of spread would be based on a number of factors of being able to put the shells on target, no? Crew quality, mathematics quality, FO quality, gun quality, shell quality?

But, as you mentioned, I've been wrong before! Just trying to clarify things in my mind.

Hope you're well
Take care and good luck
Jason Petho
 
Last edited:

Prester John

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
105
Reaction score
1
Location
Brisbane
Country
llAustralia
Jason Petho said:
Seems to me, as someone mentioned previously, the reduction of spread would be based on a number of factors of being able to put the shells on target, no? Crew quality, mathematices quality, FO quality, gun quality, mathematices quality, shell quality?
Of all the factors you mention I would take out the FO, and the mathematics. All of the other factors would contribute to the "tightness" of the fire mission. If the FO gives out the wrong grid reference or the firing tables are wrong then the fire mission lands somewhere else. Crew quality would be most important, followed by the type of gun and amount of wear. I would hope that propellant quality would be low on the list, but then it could be my turn to be wrong.
 

RobN

Recruit
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Location
Earth
Country
llUnited States
What I'd like most to have is the ability to redeploy forces before a scenario begins - a skill that should be tested.
I'd also like to see the TEM of a hex shown in the Unit List.
On the graphics front, it would be great if each scenario had its own rendered map, complete with unique terrain graphics and buildings. The present maps are a bit monotonous and often look little like the real thing. I once toyed with the idea of making to-scale graphics for forests, roads and buildings etc., but decided that objects such as buildings, bridges and hedges would be too small on the screen.
 

Jason Petho

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2002
Messages
583
Reaction score
5
Location
Calgary, AB, Canada
Country
llCanada
RobN said:
What I'd like most to have is the ability to redeploy forces before a scenario begins - a skill that should be tested.
This is available with the Dynamic Campaigns (DCG)within the Campaign Series.

With stand alone scenarios and Linked Campaigns (LCG), they are meant to represent "historical" conditions and based on those conditions you are to play out the battle as you see fit from the initial jump-off position.


RobN said:
I'd also like to see the TEM of a hex shown in the Unit List.
A good idea, but have you factored in the hexsides? Would make display a little confusing, I believe.


RobN said:
On the graphics front, it would be great if each scenario had its own rendered map, complete with unique terrain graphics and buildings. The present maps are a bit monotonous and often look little like the real thing.
For stand alone scenarios and Linked Campaigns the maps are meant to accurately portray the actual battlefield (this is subjective accuracy depending on the designer). Only in Dynamic Campaigns and randomly generated games are the maps randomly created.


RobN said:
I once toyed with the idea of making to-scale graphics for forests, roads and buildings etc., but decided that objects such as buildings, bridges and hedges would be too small on the screen.
Ditto, but you are right.. the graphics would be very small.

Hope that helps!
Take care and good luck
Jason Petho
 

Mike Maguire

Recruit
Joined
Apr 22, 2004
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Location
Houston, TX
Country
llUnited States
Granted, this is an engine thing, but along the same lines of the combining trucks for loading would be having the ability inbetween campaign (DCG or LCG) games to be able to 'add' to the reinforcement points available by clicking down the available SP of a unit.
In other words you take away what already exists from one unit and add it to another; thereby allowing you to merge units that separately cannot be properly reinforced with the points available, but together can be made a viable fighting unit again (oft used in real life).
 

Tiger 88

Recruit
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Country
llUnited States
Modes for CS

Jason - hello! Can't believe that I just joined this club - been following it for years now!

If possible - I would like to see:

World War I

Naval Campaigns

More on the Vietnam Mode

Korea

Current State of Affairs (Gulf War, etc)

Also - how about letting Units that fire smoke - be able to during Direct Fire mode and add tanks to that mix as well.

Better destroyed vehicles (tanks, trucks, recon units, etc) and infantry kills left on map.

Add low/high level bombing's.

Snipers.

A long list I know - but anything you can do in these areas would be great Jason. Long live the Campaign Series!
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
297
Reaction score
0
Location
Hewitt, New Jersey
Country
llUnited States
Hi Jason,

Since we can all go on and on suggesting what we'd like to see (most of which is to the original game engine which I know you can't do anything about), how about you suggesting some things you'd be capable of pulling off (and willing to) and maybe having the rest of us vote for what we'd like to see first.

Personally, I'd like to see something that's a bit of a departure from what we're all used to. A naval battle or civil war scenario. Doesn't have to be anything too elaborate, just something that would put us all on the same page.

Thanks for all your volunteer work, by the way.
 
Top