Whats next???

[Xaver]

Yes, i refer to see a mines signal or even a skull to made them more visible when are free of units and to see better the minefield level and when an unit is over it use dots, 1 dot minor minefield, 2 dots medium and 3 dots heavy minefield... or a number in the corner, but if is easy mod it is not a critical thing if delay the release.

One thing i dont know if in this "mistery" game you use to the "open" minefields/wires, when an unit cross it the white bar used in PzC/MC ... can you show how appear a crossed minefield/wire??? thanks.

The jump in graphics since Tiller leave HPS is Baumgartnertastic and i am glad to see it.

PD: maybe Jison minefields symbol aproximation is interesting, you can do it bigger and with mines in the hex, wire is easy to see and has less impact than mines of course.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

I mentioned before that the 2d relief map look would more than rid the possible necessity of a 3d looking map. It would also be great to see that kind of map patched into SBs, PzCs/MCs and ACW. Of course others like Naps and EAW, but I've limited myself to those first mentioned. It is a great look and should be continued.

As for the PBs, I'm hoping it will also include post ww2 scenarios or a second title that would be post ww2 or even follow the CS way by having EF, WF, PF and post ww2. WW2 is obvious, post ww2 would be easier to have scenarios covering AI Wars, French in Indochina, and others. With Battalion HQs, I would love to see implemented, a way to attach/detach units from one organization to another. Maybe have all HQs listed and one grabs a company and decides to attach to another and just be able to go to menu and click attach to HQ and the list shows and grab the HQ so that any unit, whether it is a platoon, company, battalion, whatever can be attached to any HQ. I don't know if that sounds too close to what we already have or not, but we are limited at the moment. Example would be the Bulge where the surviving rgt from 106th inf div was attached to 7 AD and then 18 AB corps. With the Battalion HQs and you have say the 1ss PD, you should be able to create your KG by attaching units to that Bn HQ, which obviously is the same thing as the U.S. TFs.

Anyway, no matter about PBs being one or more titles, wife has already been warned about future purchases. :)

[Elxaime]

Here is another possibility for a PzC game, but with a new twist:

A fictional war a la Blitzkrieg - yes, the 1965 Avalon Hill board game that was one of the very first commercial war games. While I would guess that Hasbro still has the rights, I wonder if they might be willing to partner with a Matrix remake using the PzC system. It would be a feast for scenario designers, since you not only have Great Blue and Big Red, but also five minor countries. You could also choose to place it within any era: WW1, WW2, Korean/Vietnam, 1980's or Modern. The back story would be a war fought on a part of Earth where other off-board powers provided the arms, so you could use real world equipment. Strategic options galore, including letting players choose initial orders of battle with equipment based on who they took as their arms supplier (US, Europe, China, Russia, etc.). The five minor countries could have various allegiances and doctrines (e.g. Swiss-style redoubt defense with militia, or a Tito-style partisan warfare strategy), and add in the possibility of a pre-war diplomacy phase (which would then segue into a scenario where the allegiances were set). Strategy choices could make airdrops and marine landings real surprises. Ideally, it could be made as a descendant of the 1965 Blitzkrieg, but if not then Matrix could devise its own version. In any case, it would be a blast designing a map from scratch instead of having to hew to history. And players could experience the challenge of fighting campaigns where you really have no idea what the other side will do.

[76mm]

I would love to be able to create fictional conflicts with the PzC engine, and I can't see how it would cut into sales of their historical games, which require far more research/work than 99.9% of customers would be inclined to spend on designing a new game.

[Liebchen]

A fictional war a la Blitzkrieg - yes, the 1965 Avalon Hill board game that was one of the very first commercial war games.

While I remember Blitzkrieg fondly, I must respectfully point out that NO one has EVER come up with a fictional map with as many interesting facets as the real map of Earth, especially of Europe/Northern Africa/Western Asia.

The assorted choke points, rivers, mountain ranges, etc. I have long been amazed at the wonderful possibilities that the real map provides, which I have rarely (if ever) seen incorporated into a fictional map.

So, to be clear, I'm not dissing your idea, just singing my hallelujahs to the real geography of the world and all that it has provided in the way of wargaming potential.

[Elxaime]

I don't disagree. But if you are making historical games, a lot of that geography goes unused or unexplored. Or you end up seeing the same choke points over and over.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

I'd like to see a mix of historical/fictional to the tune of a post ww2 mix between the games of Superpower/PzCs-MCs/ and maybe something new for a more enhanced air and naval aspect.

You would have the global map like in Superpower, operate as many countries as you want, you have the economic part of countries that have military surplus or any country wanting to sell any of it's military equipment to buy something else. Countries in shades of blue are friendly and shades of red are not, and countries that are grey are neutral and maybe a yellow stripe to show armed conflict with either rebel forces or main forces of another country.

U.S. has M60s in main force, M48s in Guard and Reserve forces and M26s in surplus for world war emergency or for sale. Then they get the M1 and start outfitting main forces one armor bn at a time, then moving the replaced M60s to Guard/Reserve and replaced M48s to surplus or for sale.

You click on any country and the map zooms in to PzCs/MCs style along with the units down to company size with the exception of SFs units that could be smaller. Many times have there been cases where only a battalion or company was put on the ground with various supporting elements. Maybe a rescue operation in the Congo, what countries are going to contribute and what each is willing to contribute, maybe a para bn from Belgium with another from France or Foreign Legion, air transports from U.S. and combat a/c from U.K., whatever mix you can put together.

France fully commits to French Indochina or U.S. decides against going into Vietnam or ww3 eventually erupts somewhere.

I know it would be a very large game, but can be countered with how many countries you operate. You can operate different countries every turn if that is what you want to do or take U.S. and Nato countries against anything that pops up or U.S./Nato/Seato or WP or take one country and try to build your own alliances and then operating those countries along with your own or not. Or take some small third world country and try to build your own local alliances and try to become a world power.

A better game with the detail of War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition but more user friendly and better ground game which would lean more towards what I described above.

My mind still has plenty of time to wander.

[Grabenkrieg]

More than anything i'd like to see FWWC France '17 or France '18, but (somewhat understandably, from a business perspective) it seems more likely that they would either do a different theater first or progress chronologically (1915, then 1916, etc.)

From a gaming perspective jumping from 1914 to 1917 or 1918 would be a dramatic change in pace and available technology, and this would keep the game from feeling too similar to France '14, so maybe not all hope is lost - however, variety could just as easily be accomplished by switching theaters, an understandable move that just wouldn't appeal as much to me personally as most of my interest lies in the Western Front.

JTS seems to be putting a lot of focus on mobile games now, not to mention the yet-unreleased first game in the Panzer Battles series and the two teased games mentioned earlier in this thread, so i'll probably have plenty of patient waiting to do regardless.

[Al]

More than anything i'd like to see FWWC France '17 or France '18, but (somewhat understandably, from a business perspective) it seems more likely that they would either do a different theater first or progress chronologically (1915, then 1916, etc.)

From a gaming perspective jumping from 1914 to 1917 or 1918 would be a dramatic change in pace and available technology, and this would keep the game from feeling too similar to France '14, so maybe not all hope is lost - however, variety could just as easily be accomplished by switching theaters, an understandable move that just wouldn't appeal as much to me personally as most of my interest lies in the Western Front.

JTS seems to be putting a lot of focus on mobile games now, not to mention the yet-unreleased first game in the Panzer Battles series and the two teased games mentioned earlier in this thread, so i'll probably have plenty of patient waiting to do regardless.

I think maybe late war Western Front action be more readily accomplished since most if not all of the maps are already done. However, I think there's so much Balkan/Eastern Front that could be covered and make for some interesting campaigns. Just hope we haven't seen the first and last of FWWC.

[76mm]

While I remember Blitzkrieg fondly, I must respectfully point out that NO one has EVER come up with a fictional map with as many interesting facets as the real map of Earth, especially of Europe/Northern Africa/Western Asia.

The assorted choke points, rivers, mountain ranges, etc. I have long been amazed at the wonderful possibilities that the real map provides, which I have rarely (if ever) seen incorporated into a fictional map.

You're right of course, but the problem is that gamers react with cognitive dissonance if you try to use a Wehrmacht-style army in, say, Lebanon, or a Japanese-style army in Britain. The good thing about a fictional map is it allows you much greater freedom to use familiar armies in unfamiliar situations/geographies. Of course the main question is whether it is desirable/interesting to do so, but for me at least the answer is yes.