• Havoc
  • Caius
  • redboot
  • Rules
  • Chain of Command
  • Members
  • Supported Ladders & Games
  • Downloads


Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
CS Wishlist
06-10-2016, 01:03 AM,
#11
RE: CS Wishlist
Tank riders can be a toss up. Many times I have read where infantry riding the tanks specially for transport and support on the battlefield where they dismounted. But many is the time I have also read where the riders clung on while the tanks rushed to breakthrough a roadblock or retreat through a perilous area and the only infantry dismounts were the dead and the wounded who could no longer hold on.
Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2016, 01:39 AM,
#12
RE: CS Wishlist
Aircraft shot down should count for something. If a bicycle has a value, shouldn't the destruction of an enemy aircraft and a killed or captured pilot?

db
Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us. --Walt Kelly
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2016, 01:42 AM, (This post was last modified: 06-10-2016, 01:42 AM by Battle Kat.)
#13
RE: CS Wishlist
(06-10-2016, 01:39 AM)Scud Wrote: Aircraft shot down should count for something. If a bicycle has a value, shouldn't the destruction of an enemy aircraft and a killed or captured pilot?

db

I don't know if you're aware, but as of CS:ME a downed Airstrike, if the friendly AA destroys all its SPs, counts as kills and Victory Points
[Image: 29F3B1129F294B8EA9F0BA9508F86A6C.jpg]
Visit us at CSLegion.com
Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2016, 01:44 AM,
#14
RE: CS Wishlist
(06-10-2016, 01:42 AM)Battle Kat Wrote:
(06-10-2016, 01:39 AM)Scud Wrote: Aircraft shot down should count for something. If a bicycle has a value, shouldn't the destruction of an enemy aircraft and a killed or captured pilot?

db

I don't know if you're aware, but as of CS:ME a downed Airstrike, if the friendly AA destroys all its SPs, counts as kills and Victory Points

Well then...nevermindRolling Eyes
Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us. --Walt Kelly
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2016, 01:44 AM, (This post was last modified: 06-10-2016, 01:45 AM by Battle Kat.)
#15
RE: CS Wishlist
(06-10-2016, 12:24 AM)Scud Wrote: I assume we're talking a lot of time?  Big Grin 

Time  is relativePropeller Hat
[Image: 29F3B1129F294B8EA9F0BA9508F86A6C.jpg]
Visit us at CSLegion.com
Quote this message in a reply
06-20-2016, 03:24 AM,
#16
RE: CS Wishlist
(06-09-2016, 02:03 PM)Schwerpunkt75 Wrote:
(06-07-2016, 11:51 PM)Herr Straße Laufer Wrote:
(06-07-2016, 07:42 PM)Ivan The Big Wrote: For EF/WF/RS

Bunker & pillbox busting (destruction). For example two 16" shells hitting a bunker and there would be a big hole in the ground where a bunker use to sit, troops gone no need for bodies or parts. There has to be a way that with enough firepower the bunker would disappear. Pillboxes maybe more firepower. I'd stay away from building them within the time span scale of a scenario. They are involved engineering feats that take longer than 20 turns, 2 hours to build and leave it at that. (Sorry the metallurgical engineer is coming out in me)

Full hex bridge destruction. Needs to be a way to blow full bridge spanning a hex within the time span of a longer scenario and enough engineer units placing charges.

Rubble creation: Kind of the same idea with bunker busting. With enough firepower the town/suburb/city hex would rubble with in the time scale of a scenario. 

AF rule and retreat. When a tank retreats it shows its back side to the enemy. Not sure how you fix that within the game scale but I have lost more tanks to that issue than I can count. 

Cavalry & Motorcycle troops. I've noticed that when they are loaded and get shot at, they king of get blown out of the saddle and the transport remains. I would think the transport would sustain an equal amount of damage most of the time and if any troops SP's would survive they would immediately dismount after the first attack.

Tank riders. We all know tank riders are extremely susceptible to incoming fire. After the first shot and if some SP's survived wouldn't it be prudent that they would immediately dismount and therefore not be as easy a target to kill? 

Artillery unit strength points. Before JTCS 2.02, in EF a lot of the Soviet guns were 4-6 strength points and after JTCS a lot of them went to two strength points. We all know that an attack into a hex is based on firepower(attack strength) at a range plus the amount of strength points conducting the attack. By reducing the strength points in essence the effectiveness of those units was greatly reduced IMO.

On board aircraft. I've been thinking about this one a lot lately and IMHO they should be gone, removed from the game. We are playing a turn based game that is for the most part somewhat fluid but not fully fluid with respect to the ground units. Aircraft on the other hand operate in fully fluid form/mode flying over the battlefield at 200+ miles an hour and shouldn't stop in a hex to wait for the opponent to complete his turn. The way they currently handle airstrikes in the game is the mechanism we should move forward with. Mind you when helicopters arrive in Korea they should be handled like they are in CSME which is not a bad mechanism. I don't ever expect to see helicopters in WWII. 

Good points.
Bunkers/Pillboxes - destruction agreed. But even a 16" shell would almost need a direct hit on a pillbox.
Patton used 155mm and 8" guns to fire direct at Pillboxes. They had the great, and desired effect. But, it cannot be always duplicated in the game against the troopers in the pillbox and never cause the destruction of the pillbox.
Building the Pillbox should never be part of the game unless they factor in the curing of the concrete. Way to out of scale.
Full Hex Bridge destruction - always thought that was a game engine issue. Hexsides recognized. Full hexes not. (Not a programmer so do not know the way it would work).
Rubble - I thought that was going to be addressed a long time ago. Must have been put on the back burner.
AF - to me it was addressed in the optional rule. I like it off but I see it as a unit cohesion issue that created opportunities for more rear shots.
CAV and MC troopers - yes there should have be incremental damage to the transport (more so for the fleshly ones).
TANK RIDERS - historically, did they drop off at the first shots?
Artillery SP and effectiveness - part of the tinkering (that should have been left to the scenario designer) that had an unexpected/unintended effect on the game.
ON BOARD AIRCRAFT - definitely with you on this one.

Farmer

HSL

I especially love the idea of built up hexes being reduced to rubble. This needs to happen.

I like that AF is an optional rule. I don't play with it turned on any more, as I don't think it fits with the game scale, but I understand that others like it.

Definitely believe that tank riders should drop off their carrying tanks after taking fire (and damage).

Definitely don't introduce building of bunkers, pillboxes or trenches into the game - again, not in the game's scale.

On board aircraft = terrible idea. Won't play a scenario that includes them.

If it can be done within the confines of the game engine, the option to be able destroy a full-hex bridge would be a good addition. Might be best handled as a scenario design feature, i.e. bridges start wired for demo, as opposed to having engineer units with the ability to prepare them within the game for demolition (out of game scale?).

Suggestions of my own:

"Airstrikes should be more like artillery strikes, targeting all units within a particular hex.

Artillery strikes should occupy a hex for a full turn, which would not permit units moving through hexes to avoid being struck.

If there's any way to do counter-battery fire, i.e. identify artillery units (especially rocket units) locations out of line of sight, it would be welcome."

Got some good ideas there Schwerpunkt75 especially the artillery being around for a full turn. Something like residual firepower in the old ASL series.

Hmmm, airstrikes affecting all units in a hex instead of a single unit? I'll have to think about that one a bit. Not taking anything away from HSL's comment I have hit some juicy targets with airstrikes and a few trucks and wagons too! But it seems more the ladder than the former so Ed has a point.

Counter battery fire: Not sure how we could do this within the confines of the engine. Believe me, I'd like to see it to but getting there is another story. Problem is it would almost always have to be scattered fire and unless you hit a truck or HQ you won't do much.

Dev wrote:
"One of my wants has always been color coordinated command structures.

Dependent on the number of separate commands on the map in any scenario, have the ability to hard set them in different colors so you can "keep" them together within their lower HQs command ranges."

I'm liking this idea a lot, it would make command structure so much easier to work with Dev.



Finally anyone have thoughts on splitting or combining like units? I tossed this out a few years ago as a way to consolidate units on the map or split your forces so you have more spotting eyes on the battle field. It would have to be done by SP and could only be like units(PzIVh with PzIVh; US '44 infantry with US '44 infantry etc). You can do it in TOAW and I always thought it was a nice feature. 
Quote this message in a reply
06-20-2016, 08:35 AM,
#17
RE: CS Wishlist
Counter battery fire in this scale? Uh, not for me. Mortar Just fire where you you think they are? Or, if off board ... really? Clues

Splitting units? Also a no go.
Why in a platoon scaled game where "the team" already added scout squads would you want more than the scenario designer put in? Any scenario designer could make units into squads, with a little work? I just don't see making Squad Battles out of CS.
If to combine two weaker units, then you throw out unit cohesion? Morale?
The ripple effect seems to open Pandora's box, IMO. Pirate Duel2

cheers

HSL
Quote this message in a reply
06-25-2016, 10:46 PM,
#18
RE: CS Wishlist
Some great points and ideas here guys.
I will cease and desist from my Haiku Corner threads as this is exactly that.

A quick preface.
All changes should be evaluated not only as to how they effect us going forward but as to how they effect the considerable amount of work put into many of our old favorite scenarios.

I'll add a few points to consider.
There are of course "IMO" so let's keep it civil... Whistle
Let me start with the ideas proponed above.


Bridge Blowing of Full Hex (or longer) bridges:

There are a lot of scenarios out there that have been designed using the fact that you can blow a hexside bridge and you can't blow a full hex bridge. If you open it up to full hex bridges many of those will be fundamentally changed, and in some cases ruined.  My Longest Day being one example.  I used the full hex bridges over the inland canals in order to prevent the Axis from sealing off entire areas of the map.  Should we decide to incorporate blowing full hex bridges I would ask we at least incorporate the ability to build them, using the Bridge Engineers of course.  I think it opens a can of worms, but if I can at least go back and modify an existing scenario to preserve it, I can live with it.


OP Fire Setting/Keyboard Strokes:

Point well made.  The old way was to hit the "D".  Then, in a fit of inspired and self delusional improvement it was "improved" to become "CTRL P"?... Crazy


Next Available Unit:

Can we make it so that you can click on ANY unit and start moving to the "next available" or "last available" (reverse key) rather than having to plow through EVERY unit on the mapboard from the right edge to the left?  In the massive scenarios you risk carpal tunnel syndrome prior to hitting that damned button 4,987 times...


Color Coordinated Command:

Awesome idea.


Elimination of ON MAP Air:

I'm ambivalent here...but it raises a lot of hackles...so...let's just get rid of it?  I believe this could be done without effecting most if not all of the scenarios out there that have included it.


Rubble Creation:

I totally agree on this one.  It seems...way back when...the original version of the game did this.  I seem to recall city hexes slowly becoming rubble after repeated artillery strikes?  That was cool.  It also seems the game even tracked the height of said rubble, as in a village became 2 meter high rubble and city became 10 meter high rubble.  Not exact on the numbers, but I believe the old tables included rubble height/effect on visibility?


Blowing Bunkers and Pillboxes:

Again, awesome idea IMO.  It gives us a choice, do we want to keep/save that bunker because it may be of use to our side later, or should we just eliminate it?  I would suggest engineers could also be allowed to blow LOW stone walls, and even BOCAGE.  


Armor Facing and the Retreat:

Let me say this...I love AF.
I see it as a subtlety that allows a good tactician to gain an advantage.
I think the strategic thinkers in our group tend to feel otherwise, but as a tactical guy who lacks the capacity for strategic thinking of any sort, I love it.
I don't love the way it works for retreat however.
I see a growing trend towards playing with AF off which I find disheartening.  I think it's the retreat thing that they really don't like.  I get it.
Guys, for me, and many others, the subtlety involved in getting a flank shot is a great part of the game and I'd hate to see that go away.  I think of it like playing chess for years, getting good at it, and suddenly I'm playing checkers.
Still, I totally agree tanks should not automatically retreat by turning 180 degrees and showing their ass while they run.  What I'd like to do is find a way to improve that aspect without simply resorting to turning AF off.  Tanks have sides, tanks have rear ends, and in my case a rear end is actually in charge of the tank...but shots taken from the sides and rear should get better results based on the targets (well thought out and researched) side and rear armor thicknesses vs. their frontal values.

If Bill/Askari chimes in on this thread...he developed some excellent ideas about how to improve the stupid retreat regimen which could help us preserve Armor Facing by removing that problem area.  Not to say some tanks didn't run and show their rears...it should be a probability...perhaps effected by the morale/skill level of the tankers?


Clearing Minefields:

In cases where you run into multiple strength minefields (YES JASON I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU... Big Laugh  ) it would be nice if you could run multiple engineers into the hex and clear more than one strength level of mines out per turn?  Not sure about this, just an idea.  Most scenarios, a one strength minefield is all you'll run into but some of the sneaky devil designers... Whistle


Modify the Unit Display Window:

The right hand of the screen is our friend.  Nice to see those units.  In some cases the text that describes the hex itself, like CITY/BLOCKED/MINEFIELD 2, the text gets garbled and overwritten so it's hard to tell what that hex really is about.  Possibly enlarge that area so the text can be viewed clearly?


OP Fire Setting:

In some cases you can set an indirect firing unit with CTRL P, in others you have to use the dropdown to set indirect firing units.  It would be nice if you could set them all using CTRL P, or even better, using the old single key shortcut D.


Double Time for Bicycles:

Please correct me if I have this wrong but I don't believe I can double time my bicycle units.  We can go to the whip for foot soldiers and go to the whip on our horses but the bicycle guys can't peddle harder?... Whip


Commanders being carried:

Not sure why it takes a 5 strength jeep to carry a 5 strength commander.  I realize their egos get larger with their rating but not sure that carries weight?... Helmet Rolleyes


Great forum thread here.
Love to see us hashing this about.

In general I'd like to say that you have two types of changes.  Those that everyone loves, and those that everyone hates.  Let's try to remember in some cases we've actually grown to embrace and enjoy some changes that initially proved frustrating to some.  EA being a good example.  I ranted against it for some time until Eric the Hawk schooled me.  He was right.  It's simply another way to look at it and once you learn how to work within the structure of the new EA, it's fine.

I was happy with it as it was, but now I swing both ways.

Regards,

Dan
Quote this message in a reply
06-26-2016, 12:02 AM,
#19
RE: CS Wishlist
Yes Commanders being carried, I like Patton and Zhukov a lot but they shouldn't need 5 jeeps to carry their fanny's around.

Whether or not you think of weather remains to be seen in some circles. For an East Front guy like me I'd like to see something done with weather. Lets face it, about half the battles on the eastern front were fought in snow and horrible winter conditions. When that fluffy white stuff starts piling up, things like trucks and cars stop moving. When it gets deep enough even 4WD is useless. I've lived this in good 'ole Syracuse, NY for a time and seen this. Never rode a tank in the deep snow but someone told me long ago even they can get stuck if the snow is deep enough. Right now in the game snow is snow. Its not light or deep just one depth. Maybe we could have two depths light as it is now-default (so we won't affect the 1000 existing scenarios) and deep as a design option when movement is seriously hampered to like 50 action points per hex. Finally does lousy snowy frozen weather affect troop morale? Yeah, kind of but I guess you can pre-determine that in scenario design.

The deep freeze of it all. Does all the water have to freeze or maybe just the stream and minor rivers but major rivers remain open?!. Speaking of frozen major rivers, how much artillery bombardment is needed to break the ice? As it sits now ice can't break.

Clearing minefields, good point. Also, Did artillery have an affect on minefield density in WWII. Thought I read somewhere it did maybe I'm wrong.

Cheers!
Quote this message in a reply
06-26-2016, 05:57 AM, (This post was last modified: 06-26-2016, 05:58 AM by Herr Straße Laufer. Edit Reason: double word )
#20
RE: CS Wishlist
Dan,

Bridge Blowing of Full Hex (or longer) bridges: Good point

OP Fire Setting/Keyboard Strokes: LOL! Team team team!

Next Available Unit: Like this idea

Color Coordinated Command: Play Panzer Battles?

Elimination of ON MAP Air: Yup.

Rubble Creation: Remember it the way that you do.

Armor Facing and the Retreat: I'd like to see what they can do.

Clearing Minefields: Interesting, but for me it would add to the surreal.

Modify the Unit Display Window: OK

OP Fire Setting: I set opt fire individually

Double Time for Bicycles: Yes, they should. But, I do not think they can.

Commanders being carried: Commanders represent more than just themselves. They have staffs.

In general I'd like to say that you have two types of changes.  Those that everyone loves, and those that everyone hates.  Let's try to remember in some cases we've actually grown to embrace and enjoy some changes that initially proved frustrating to some.  EA being a good example.

I still hate EA, optional or otherwise. I'm just a hater. Jester

HSL
Quote this message in a reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)