PDA

View Full Version : Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !


Pages : 1 [2]

Mobhack
March 22nd, 2010, 01:55 PM
Just a little thought that occured after reading about the new demolition class. Unless I misunderstood, Mobhack said that the IEDs, booby traps etc of the new class would be able to be deployed outside the usual set up areas, up to the half way point.

So would it not be fun if you could also deploy special forces forward observation type units (SAS, Navy SEALS, maybe even snipers etc) in the same way?

Just a thought.

If you use special forces, then it is a scenario that you will be doing, since these are not the remit of a lowly battalion commander. Such special forces (SAS, Spetz etc) are provided for scenario designer usage, not for regular battles, or to use in a player's core etc.. OK to use for a specific scenario on Pebble Island for example.

IEDS are a regular day-to-day item in Terry Taleban's arsenal, however.

Cheers
Andy

rfisher
March 22nd, 2010, 03:31 PM
Thanks for the answer, and fair enough.

(Though I think it is safe to say that you would not approve at all of how I play sometimes. :D )

EpoletovSPR
August 1st, 2010, 04:07 AM
These are ideas of my friend from S.P.R. : Muhail2
To it to not be registered in this forum, it tried, but unsuccessfully.
---------------------------------------------------------

Greetings.
I have recently played a streak of urban battles, involving different forces, mainly in modern period (80s-90s). At first it was a nice change from battles in somewhat open terrain, but as the battles progressed I found myself quite frustrated by the mechanics of close combat in cover in SPMBT.
Let me describe the problems:
From many field manuals I read (US and Soviet, mainly) I carried on the perception that urban fights are hard, time consuming and quite slow (in meters per hour, in comparison with "normal" maneuver battle). Small weapons fire and MG fire have almost no effect on the defenders of the building - it's even harder to surpress them. If one side wants to achieve decisive succes, they need to bring in really heavy guns, which can literally ruin the building on top the enemy soldiers, or courageously assault into the structure, using light and close combat weaponry in fierce room-to-room battles. In that assaults, experience and morale seem to play a decisive role. I remember reading that soviet assault engineers in WW2 (remember these guys in carapace armor and cool green-black camo?) were doing miracles with their special equipment and specialized training where standard units (although they were MANY more in numbers) were stopped to a halt.
And what we have in SPMBT?
Well, how should I describe it... Infantry racing from one building to another ("oh, Gawd, they wounded Kenny! We should immediatly pull back from this fortified stone bulding right into open plain!") after a single volley of automatic fire from 50 meters, with fast APCs following them and easily routing whole platoons with mere MG fire at close ranges.
Special forces and engineers suffering greivous losses from simple reservists - just because they moved to 50m.
Assaults? Supression fire? Forgeddaboudit. Just drop a few mortar rounds and rush in APCs to rout suppressed defenders.
I'm exaggerating, of course, but you get the picture.

What I suppose and what seems not so hard to implement from my consumer point of view:
-MUCH lesser effect of small arms fire on defenders, even at 50m. A little supression before the close combat assault, nothing more.
Stone buildings may even provide enough cover from projectiles such as RPG greandes and small caliber HE rounds.
Big warheads are nice as they are, maybe make them a little more effecient to suit my taste =)
-infantry clinging harder to their cover. I suppose no pullbacks until 50% casualties in squad, even more with great 80+ morale.
That would make assaults necessary to achieve breakthough in urban combat.
I never really had I chance to test current close combat mechanics in real game situations, so I wonder, what effect does experience has on them?

Yes, many things from here can be also applied to combat in forests and jungles. That could really spice up vietnam scenarios.

P.S. Oh, god! There are also fortifications in game! Trenches, foxholes! They could finally be more than simple "-X% to hitting ya".

EpoletovSPR
August 3rd, 2010, 04:55 AM
We have discussed another issue at SPR and suggest improving the accuracy of supressive Z-fire.
At the moment, Z-fire is very dangerous at distances up to 5-6 hexes. Firing squad target a random hex in a big area around the target hex and thus is very likely to supress or even cause casualties in friendly squads.
At distances of 1-2 hexes this becomes ridiculous. Z-fire can target a hex almost behind the firing squad.
It's hard to believe a realworld unit would be spraying bullets and shells like this. If a unit is given a direct order to "supress that building" it won't spray through all the bushes in 200-meter area around it.
To counteract improved accuracy, Z-fire can be made less effective in terms of supression points generated.

Imp
August 3rd, 2010, 09:11 AM
On the last couple of posts.
Z fire agree it can be a bit to eratic up close if he cant see the target or is it. I mainly Z fire with heavy weapons MGs MTRs APCs & its reasonably acurate, squads only in rare cases burst at a tree line or hex I have recieved hidden fire from.
If I can see the hex no problem heavy weapons seem more accurate (could be me) but if you cant see the hex what do you expect.
Firing at a hex you cant see means fire traveling through a hex containing say trees buildings lots of both as its 50m so of course the fire can go anywhere its ricocheting everywhere.
Could be handled a bit better fire normally ending up in adj to first dense hex crossed but think code was adjusted to allow in first place. Does the job for me giving the right feel, heavy stuff seems more effective as less prone to richochet & deters mass Z fire at targets out of LOS while still making mass Z firing at that tree line a worthwhile proposition just in case like WW2 USA used to do.
Keeps Z fire what it is a poor substitute for arty with the exception of MGs & GLs which are very good at keeping heads down.

In combination with the previous post where you call for less suppresion effects on units in buildings that would make Z fire totaly ineffective in town. On this post about town fighting how do you suggest improving.
Hex is 50m thats normaly several buildings in a hex or you live in very big houses & 360 field of fire windows etc cannot be modelled.
Artillery has little effect unless big guns for several turns at most blinding the troops so you can sneak adjacent unless lucky. 50m is for all intents & purposes assault range now you can target that window either spraying SMG fire tossing a grenade or hitting the head & shoulder you can see.
This works well enough again giving the right feel allowing some form of tactics & all credit to the game you can tell the diffrence between diffrent troop quality.
Try 60 vs 80exp or scarry 90
High experince troops less likely to be blinded by arty (poor inexperinced guys stopped looking when the shells fell & took cover) may have more shots & more likely to recover & gain a surprise one back if one of his mates does well (I think). Seem less likely to pullback & more capable of dodging incoming fire so taking less damage & fighting longer.
Like I say try the above both ways its experince diffrence that is the worry attacking with 60 exp that arty you dropped means might have pinned yourself or if can move you are now blind & routed before even see the firer.
Close quarters fighting is deadly should be avoided at all costs & especially if your experience is more than 5 worse than his. Do the same battle in open ground where you can start engaging at range & the better exp troops will take far fewer losses.
You mention city fighting is slow WW2 & heavy weapons so do it that way, APCs are heavy weapons. Troops only no or very few vehicles now its pretty slow & painful.
Or try it vs a human & lose those APCs to RPGs unless you are very careful.
Yes there is less CC (in building) fighting than perhaps there should be but thats because the entire squad found windows to shoot out of & in game terms it makes no diffrence.
Starting the next turn with 1 unit facing 3 or 4 units adjacent to it you would be crazy to take the shot pull out if you can. Thats why units in good cover & especially fortifications like trenches tend to stay put unless reasonably damaged & someone is adjacent & about to storm there location. Fortifications also do more than adjust to hit chances I think you get a rally benefit when in them which is why they nearly always recover & I take them over if possible & set up to let me attack the next lot from.

If you can think of a better way to do this that works & gives the right feel I am all for it & agree that sometimes units bug out from an untenable position into a worse one leaving good cover & heading straight into open ground. If you have thought about where they will route to though you can have the reverse problem where the guys decide to stay put & go to their deaths.
In woods this tends to work they fall back 2 hexes & hopefully recover if thats not where your arty is falling so the defensive line shifts.
In Urban may well end up in the street unless you managed to find positions & thought about where they will head to. If you have isolated that city block with a MG down the road etc to stop reinforcing or better then they are in trouble. You can get a lot of squads just giving up & surrendering if do it right & think of this as did from there original hex.
Perhaps except so many variables it would be nice if a unit that started in a building adjacent to a street exited & crossed the street into cover more often rather than running down it. As you know they do this denying the block being isolated is important & often fairly easy pre TI by placing smoke at junctions & units covering. This is your second line giving runners a chance to get there act together the normal 2 platoons forward 1 back dependant on terrain.

EpoletovSPR
August 3rd, 2010, 06:26 PM
Muhail2:

You don't need to tell well known facts about Z-fire to me. I know that HMGs spraying at a tree-line some 400m from them do a nice job. I'm talking about z-fire at an unseen target 1-2 hexes away. Would real soldiers spray chaotically in almost 180 degree arc in front of them if they are ordered to supress "exactly this portion of treeline"?

APC is a heavy weapon, enough to make a squad abandon a building? Please, tell this to veterans of Grozny, they'll make a good laugh.
Most HMG's that are installed on APCs can, ocasionally, penetrate a wooden building. But a stone or concrete one? I doubt that.
What I meant by "heavy weapons" in my post was something like a 125mm HE-FRAG or RPO-A.

50 meters in a city is not a close combat. There a lot of cover in real 100 meters (1+1 hexes) so both sides can exchange fire a lot before inficting some serious casualties.

Moreover, think about the changes a little more. That would make fighting in the cities more complex: you'll have to fight for the whole city blocks. Let me explain it:
Game terrain generation engine likes to make towns, cities and villages made of distinctive building blocks, from 5-20+ hexes of different structures, separated by roads or occasional square.
Currently, it's not very important to control the whole block. It gives you no precise benefit.
But if the infantry inside the buildings become VERY hard to supress and rout with fire, you'll really want not to allow enemy soldiers cross the road into your block! If they manage to establish a bridehead, they will basically start to fight on equal terms, which is not good, considering that assaulting side usually have more men. You must really consider counter-attacking and assaulting them in 0 hexes hand-tohand combat to restore control over the block.
I don't know if it's very realistic or not, but that can give urban fighting that much-needed depth, that's currently lacking,

Imp
August 3rd, 2010, 10:05 PM
What I was refering to with Z fire at a hex you cant see is it normally passes through a dense hex like woods or buildings. The lighter the round the more susceptable to richochet even foilage will deflect it let alone hitting a tree.
If you fired into woods what percentage of those rounds do you think would miss all the trees & make it to where you are aiming if you cant see it. Most would be deflected or stopped I feel.

I am classing APCs as a heavy weapon simply because they can maneuver to bring multiple units to bear even if they dont drop passengers. They can help force route by causing encirclement if the unit is now surounded on several sides. Like I say try it without vehicles.

The distance is 50m NOT 100m hex centre to hex centre not edge 100m is fire with a hex seperating the two hexes. Call it 30-70m if you like 80m is the next hex.
That being said 50m still offers plenty of cover in an urban setting part of what I think you are after may be due to scale & generic urban hexes.
Concievably 2 squads in the same hex could easily still be in diffrent houses or 2 squads in adjacent hexes could be in the same room say a Factory floor with few lines of sight into from outside. Perhaps this is what you want a building that has a covered arc so can only fire from the windowed side. Should only be able to enter/exit from there to unless you make a hole. Not ideal but try using a bunker as a sort of seperate room.
Its a question of scale & a very old game engine you should probably not really be able to fire that RPG & certainly not an ATG in a 360 degree arc from a building as probably need to change rooms. Now you have a reason to go room by room if the scale allows for doors windows etc.

I need you to explain about holding the block & fighting on equal terms how you think this changes things as I think keeping people out of your block is important anyway & checking its clear is important before moving on.
As the game works now 3 things normaly happen when adjacent in a city
1) Defender in building attacker in street probably moving.
Good cover vs very poor cover & moving - big advantage to defender.
2) Both units in building attacker probably moving - slight advantage to defender
Hence keep him out of your block as stated.
3) Enters enemy hex, if defender has shots this is nearly identical to 2 though the defender has a chance to suppress or hit himself. Several men in a confined space stray shots.

So if he stays how does a unit entering its hex benefit the defender? As you said want to stop him in the street once he is in your block you are in trouble. This is what I am struggling to understand how it would change things.

Also perhaps try playing on a pregenerated map where you can often give more covering fire to other blocks as they are not laid out American style but with windy roads & smaller blocks so stopping in the street tends to be easier.
This will not really help the AI as a defender in fact probably the reverse as you take advantage of the aditional fields of fire but it helps a human defender.

Another thing to try to achieve staying put is build fanatics say exp & morale at 100 but I would adjust Inf command or they will be crack shots. I think these will stay put longer.

Some factors that might cause a unit to run.
Being fired at especially from multiple directions or even seeing you are surrounded.
Outnumbered the closer they are the bigger the threat.
Freinds killed or decide to run.
What causes him to stay is the reverse so if the street is litered with the enemy & burning APCs then despite all the above he still might stay.

What situation do the defenders in your games see?

EpoletovSPR
August 5th, 2010, 04:35 AM
Muhail2:

Ricochets are nicely simulated by small supression around the hex, which receives fire. What I'm talking about is the whole volley of all squad's rifles and MGs going somewhere far from the target. That can't be explained by an ocassional ricochet. By the way, I really doubt that a 120mm HEAT round can ricochet and go as far as 100m from the targeted hex. ;) But it does, in game.

About the blocks:
http://s002.radikal.ru/i198/1008/36/b14ec120f8ea.jpg
With the current defence values, soviet platoon can easily rout the german soldiers back into the block and than some with plain fire across the road and than advance unopposed. All in 1 turn, 5-7 minutes. If you're lucky, 3 squads are even too much, 2 could've done the job just as well.
With the proposed changes they'll have to bring down all the fire they can muster and then advance en-masse to sucessfully assault the enemy out of the block edge. 3 squads are the bare minimum to conduct this, just as in real life. And it will take 2-3 turns in most situations.
You see? It just seems so very same at first, but the differences in the details are great. Urban combat can become a serious business =)

BTW, that suggestion is based on the Squad Battles, which have a quite decent urban combat, though with flaws of their own, but I've taken them into account.

Also, you don't need to go in details about rooms, levels and backyards. That's just not in the scale of SPMBT.

Pregenerated maps with separated building hexes, as I understand it, were just made for the same purpose - to spice up the urban fighting. Or to represent a village with few houses. But these are pregenerated and are in minority.
And I don't think we should take AI in consideration. It can't use 70% of SPMBT features, why bother with him now?

Imp
August 5th, 2010, 01:10 PM
Okay now I understand what you are talking about more, there may be a case for better protection adjustment not staying adjustment however if defender gains extra protection so does the attacker of course.

The situation you show lets assume no arty as if attacker has dropped defender should often have done likewise adding time.
Attacking squads first have to get in position if no smoke or arty will definetly need 3 squads as first probably lost a couple of men.
They probably can however take him down because he is a lone squad.
If the defender has chosen terrain correctly though they will face say a platoon so it becomes difficult to get the 3-1 ratio first guys may not even see the defenders as move up before running back.
As the game stands then the easist & safest way to take a block is at its corners normaly due to less defenders then roll it up. This also has the advantage of hopefully letting you isolate the block by getting behind it. The deffender of course is trying to stop this with covering fire from other blocks.
So there are tactics & a slight increase in building terrain cover may improve them making a straight run at the block more dangerous. Hovever as the attacker gets these benefits to he will have less pinned units & so can coordinate attacks & get in position in the first place easier.
So the problem is now both sides take less damage suppresion so getting your squads in position facing the road is easier for the attacker. If he now has 3 squads in position who take less suppresion whats to stop him using 2 to draw all opfire letting the 3rd who has suffered no suppresion due to stray fire nip across the street into his hex?
Just thinking out loud this might make the attackers job easier as he has more good order units & will be subject to less surprise opfire shots as the defender cant lose suppresion it does not have.

The Z fire I said that most shots including the HEAT round should stop in the first dense hex entered rather than bouncing most of the time.
But its fudged old code you could not fire at a hex you cant see & I am fine with it for the little effect it has on the game.
As you tend to use this when you have other units near to the hex you are Z firing like in a woods & you want to move adjacent it represents the fact you might hit them by mistake, yes its abstracted a bit but gives the right feel.

EpoletovSPR
August 11th, 2010, 01:33 PM
To limit shooting in aircraft received before fatal damage.

Such example: S-300 gets in " IDS Tornado " - Damage = 250 point, but another S-300, and then and that that has got for the first time time shoot at this "Tornado" still. :re:

The first aircraft rescues from AA-defence the others aircraft attacking in this turn.

================================================== ============

When vechicle immobilized above it appears specific smoke.
It unmasks this vechicle (even if enemy has no LOS in it) and does by its desired victim.

It is necessary to clean this smoke from winSP, as not realistic.
Crew purposely shows all that it vechicle convenient immobilized target?! :)

Imp
August 11th, 2010, 01:59 PM
Thats some pilot if the plane took 250pts of damage & it still managed to carry out its attack.
Works exactly the same as fire at any other unit, hit & damage say a tank other units will continue to fire at it.
Also with Sams that engage the plane before it fires in other words as enters the map they would already be in the air by the time the first hit anyway.
Beyond the capability of the game but only way would be to have radar units linked & fire a set number at each plane regardless of whether the first one destroyed it or not.

EpoletovSPR
August 12th, 2010, 04:46 AM
It is clear.
But the same SAM S-300 that the first has got in Aircraft then has shot once again the second rocket!
Aircraft has turned to a dust and crew S-300 continues bombardment...

Imp
August 12th, 2010, 08:05 AM
Okay missunderstood sorry
Did the plane realy take 250pts & survive?
Thought 15 or so would get even the hardiest (strongest) plane apart from perhaps some strategic bombers.
Pressume the Plane moved or fired again then the SAM.

My original statement still holds true though in real life the second SAM would have been fired while the first was in the air especially as its a strategic SAM so was really shot at a long time before it entered the map.

Which is the thing do not take what happens quite so literallry (action by action) look at what happens in the whole turn & some odd looking things make a lot of sense.
The game engine is one unit moves & others can react to it yet it approximates (comes near to) well tactics like an entire company breaking cover at once.
Quite how I dont know but think of what all the units did that turn not individualy he moved before him, no he didnt or only fractionally it all happened in the same 3 minutes.

I agree air defence can be bled but so can any unit without linked radar control cant see how to change that.
If you want to approxomate AA selecting suitable targets have a house rule.
Planes must be bought worse EW rating first to best last.
That way when used AA fires at the easy targets first.
Cant see it doing much though as can still send in high EW planes on there own to hopefully take & survive multiple fires.
Also SEAD still need to be bought first & normally have high EW because of their mission so problems here unless they attack on seperate turns to the rest of the planes which is probably more realistic & easy enough using Gold Spots to clear the way.

Side note
Just lost a plane on a strafing run vs arty park, silly boy targeted the ammo dump instead of the arty pieces & got caught in the shock wave, aargh.

EpoletovSPR
August 12th, 2010, 03:38 PM
Was so:
Enter ' Tornado '-> ' S-300 ' strikes with damage = 250 points --> another rocket launcher ' S-300 ' (missed is properly that they have at the same time shot) --> ' Tornado ' move 1 hex --> Rocket launcher * 1 S-300 ' launch one more rocket --> ' Tornado ' damage 200 point (total 450 point) --> ' Tornado ' flame and down.


Now mass attacks of the Air Forces are very effective are a problem.
The first aircraft take away to themselves all AA-fire, rescueing that the others.

If it is possible, it is necessary for correcting somehow.


By the way, with helicopter is not present such: they at once destroy at sufficient received damage (there is no extra expense ammo at AA-unit). :clap:

To make as for aircraft vs AA-unit.

Imp
August 12th, 2010, 05:09 PM
Realise what you are saying about AA fire

Know not what you are asking but something is strange Tornado should I am pretty sure crash after 15 damage 250 blew it to bits there would be no wreckage, Strange.

Marcello
August 14th, 2010, 08:20 AM
Was so:
Now mass attacks of the Air Forces are very effective are a problem.


That's true in real life as well.

EpoletovSPR
August 14th, 2010, 06:05 PM
AA-weapon not less effectively, if progress of armed forces in the clashing countries equally, for example, USA vs RF. :fight:

KV7
August 18th, 2010, 09:18 AM
What would be great is for HE rounds to have a chance in direct and indirect fires to score a direct hit on hard targets and thus achieve higher penetration.

iCaMpWiThAWP
August 18th, 2010, 07:58 PM
I think they can, i usually kill light apcs by Z-Firing big HE into it, and arty can score direct hits on armor, scratch a few tigers with 155mm.

KV7
August 18th, 2010, 11:29 PM
Yes, it is effective enough, but from the blast damage, sometimes the destroyed tank is in another hex altogether. anyways, that is not the big issue.

what I would like to see is the HE rounds on howitzers having a discrete chance to directly hit in direct fires based on the FC and accuracy.

Say I open up with a 122mm howitzer at 800 yards on a M113 APC, there could be two effects,

1, A discrete chance of achieving a direct hit, with in this case rather sever consequences, determined in the same way as if firing a heat round.

2, Failing this, a chance for blast and shrapnel hits determined by the shell size and HE kill, as per indirect fires.

This is of course very similar to the duel use HEAT rounds on RPG's, and is also a sensible way to model APHE rounds.

As you hinted above, the effect of arty in direct fire seems to be better when Z fired or into another adjacent target, when firing normally the actual target will almost never be hit, but the units in adjacent hexes will be busted up big time. Actually, when trying to hit a tank in direct fires i will often fire at a crew section nearby knowing the blast effect in the adjacent hex will be greater than the direct fire effects in the target hex.

For indirect fires you could do the same thing, except the chance to achieve a direct hit would be determined by the target density and be rather low (tank is maybe a 15 square meter target, in a hex of 1750m/s, so very low chance to direct hit)

This way you could model target scanning munitions as well, just bump up the chance for direct hits in indirect fires.

iCaMpWiThAWP
August 19th, 2010, 06:40 PM
you can have a direct hit in indirect fire, shoot a barrage of 155mm on a bunch of tanks, and you WILL get a 'top hit' message. and, from my point of view, a top hit is a direct hit to the top, that's what you meant right?

Wdll
August 20th, 2010, 04:04 AM
You know what would be great to have? A "deselect" key or something.

Marek_Tucan
August 20th, 2010, 09:28 AM
Easy, just move the unit into enemy field of fire and it will quickly get deselected,no? ;)

EpoletovSPR
September 3rd, 2010, 06:24 PM
To make a payload ammo carier limited.


================================================== ==


Will reduce quantity of bullets at MG-unit (for example instead of 90 to make 30-40).

jsallison
September 12th, 2010, 10:03 PM
I'd like to be able to go online in the game at setup, seek an opponent, set up a game and play it out online. Perhaps with timed turns either based on points used or by mutual agreement.

Imp
September 12th, 2010, 10:36 PM
I'd like to be able to go online in the game at setup, seek an opponent, set up a game and play it out online. Perhaps with timed turns either based on points used or by mutual agreement.

Are you serious unless you are talking very small games thats half an hour or more sitting doing nothing vs a couple of minutes replay & that assumes the phone doesnt go or something. If you want to play it out fast & timezones allow just say you are both at your computer & do something while waiting for the bing as the next email turns up

jsallison
September 13th, 2010, 07:44 PM
Thus the timed turns. Don't need a half hour for a turn on a 2500/5000 pt game. I'd say 10 minutes/turn would be too long. I'd go along with only being allowed to specify preferences, mission, nationalities and time period. Computer to buy and deploy at which point you, the new guy just bussed in to replace the guy that got sacked at tea time get to hit the ground running. Can you do anything with the @$#% sandwich the computer hands you?

kevineduguay1
September 16th, 2010, 04:45 PM
Increase the number of weapons slots like you did with the Units and Formations slots. Some of the OOBs are close to full in this area.

DRG
September 16th, 2010, 07:35 PM
We have this request at least once a year.

It is impossible to expand those variables without rebuilding the game from scratch. That's just the way it's put together and the way they interconnect with everything else and WHY they were not expanded years ago when we first started doing this.

All save games would be buggered, all scenarios, all campaigns, everything would have to be redone.

Don

kevineduguay1
September 16th, 2010, 08:21 PM
Then Maybe a new game? Like winSPMBT 1980. This would clear up some slots and give room to add more of the new tech in weapons and units.

greasy_old_tanker
September 23rd, 2010, 01:10 PM
Would like to have a deployment zone AND a recon deployment zone say 10-20 hexes forward of the main deployment zone? It will then be possible to build a screen-line. during defense and delay opns and place recon elements forward of the main body.

Warwick
February 8th, 2011, 06:10 PM
How about reduced artillery effects in deep sand & snow?
(Although airbursts might be a complication.)

Regards,
Warwick

Mobhack
February 8th, 2011, 07:39 PM
How about reduced artillery effects in deep sand & snow?
(Although airbursts might be a complication.)

Regards,
Warwick

Sand dune hexes and deep snow hexes reduce arty effects a little already, as do mud hexes.

"Airburst" ammo is simply HE cluster in game terms.

Cheers
Andy

DRG
February 8th, 2011, 07:56 PM
Set up a test game with a custom map using those features and do a bombardment with blast effects on. You will see a reduced blast radius and as well the overall effect on soft targets is less

Don

BogdanM
February 24th, 2011, 12:57 PM
First of all I'd like to thank the developers for creating such a masterpiece, it really is a game that if you play it once, you'll always come back for more.

I wish my first post wouldn't be a request but there is one situation that troubles me in each and every battle, enemies hiding inside buildings. I couldn't find any unit/tactic to counter this disadvantage. I understand that being invisible its a vital aspect in setting up ambushes and its realistic for the enemy to be invisible to my regular units while being static and not engaging me but specialized units like FOs, snipers or any kind of vehicles with high enough vision(>40) should be able to spot them even if they're hiding.

Maybe not instantly, for eg. my unit should not move for 1-2 turns while looking in that direction or maybe add some kind of special ability...

I don't know if anything can be done and this issue isn't of course a deal breaker but I would like to hear your thoughts regarding this particular inconvenience.

dmnt
February 25th, 2011, 11:07 AM
I understand that being invisible its a vital aspect in setting up ambushes and its realistic for the enemy to be invisible to my regular units while being static and not engaging me but specialized units like FOs, snipers or any kind of vehicles with high enough vision(>40) should be able to spot them even if they're hiding.

Maybe not instantly, for eg. my unit should not move for 1-2 turns while looking in that direction or maybe add some kind of special ability...


How long would you need to stare at a properly camouflaged person from distance to reliably recognize him?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marine_sniper_ghillie_suit.JPG

It's realistic that people who are in good hiding and not moving are hard to spot. Let's suppose that you have thermal vision - even then you'd have to spot the tiny area where this person is exposed at your direction. I remember one cold Finnish night, we were among the first batch of infantry that got hands into TI equipment. During the night I many times thought I'd seen some movement behind the trees and rocks, turning my night vision equipment over there just to see nothing at all.

My solution to your problem is to drop enough munitions to the area where I know or suspect the enemy troops to be. Rockets, especially CM, is good for that.

Suhiir
February 25th, 2011, 12:32 PM
I wish my first post wouldn't be a request but there is one situation that troubles me in each and every battle, enemies hiding inside buildings. I couldn't find any unit/tactic to counter this disadvantage. I understand that being invisible its a vital aspect in setting up ambushes and its realistic for the enemy to be invisible to my regular units while being static and not engaging me but specialized units like FOs, snipers or any kind of vehicles with high enough vision(>40) should be able to spot them even if they're hiding.

Maybe not instantly, for eg. my unit should not move for 1-2 turns while looking in that direction or maybe add some kind of special ability...

While I'd tend to agree that ATGMs, tanks, and other such stuff should probably be spotted after a shot or two ... even knowing for certain an infantry squad is in a 50x50m area is hardly the same as having them spotted well enough for aimed direct fire.

FO's really don't pay much attention to anything smaller then a platoon (unless it's shooting at them :shock:).
Since their job is to hit target areas rather then specific targets.
I know this because I use to be one ;)

As to snipers or scouts, yea, they should, and do get a bonus to spot stuff (check the game manual).

Mobhack
February 25th, 2011, 01:22 PM
I wish my first post wouldn't be a request but there is one situation that troubles me in each and every battle, enemies hiding inside buildings. I couldn't find any unit/tactic to counter this disadvantage. I understand that being invisible its a vital aspect in setting up ambushes and its realistic for the enemy to be invisible to my regular units while being static and not engaging me but specialized units like FOs, snipers or any kind of vehicles with high enough vision(>40) should be able to spot them even if they're hiding.

Maybe not instantly, for eg. my unit should not move for 1-2 turns while looking in that direction or maybe add some kind of special ability...

While I'd tend to agree that ATGMs, tanks, and other such stuff should probably be spotted after a shot or two ... even knowing for certain an infantry squad is in a 50x50m area is hardly the same as having them spotted well enough for aimed direct fire.

FO's really don't pay much attention to anything smaller then a platoon (unless it's shooting at them :shock:).
Since their job is to hit target areas rather then specific targets.
I know this because I use to be one ;)

As to snipers or scouts, yea, they should, and do get a bonus to spot stuff (check the game manual).

Scouts and snipers do not get any specific spotting bonus due to their class.

- If in own formation, they usually have a small experience bonus. Experience counts in spotting. But 3 points is neither here nor there. It may just tip the element over a limit though.

- They tend to be size 0 elements, so can get a hex or 2 closer without themselves being spotted, but usually being able to see size 1 elements fine. (Always provided that you remember to move them 1 hex at most, perhaps on alternate turns if you think defenders are within ~500m. Movement is about the biggest give-away to being spotted.)

Thermal Imaging sights (40+ vision) can spot infantry type elements a few hexes further away than plain vanilla vision as well.

But generally speaking - if you suspect the enemy is in an area, dust it down with arty. Arty is an area fire weapon after all - and delousing is part of it's job description.

Andy

DRG
February 25th, 2011, 02:55 PM
........As to snipers or scouts, yea, they should, and do get a bonus to spot stuff (check the game manual).



You're going to have to check the game manual and tell us where it says that.

What it does say is this




Size 0 infantry units can get a hex or 2 closer, so may well notice things the other infantry have not yet seen and that is why some players may feel scouts have special spotting abilities but they do not.








Don

EpoletovSPR
November 25th, 2012, 12:25 PM
In WinSP not so well is visible a relief, to especially beginning players who have not got used to game. :pc:

I offer "slope" to display other color (it is On./Off. in preference).
Or somehow differently to facilitate reading map. :bow:

duff
November 27th, 2012, 06:10 PM
Would it be possible/hard to allow a negative value for units. It would be useful for scenario designers - eg mission being to kill the soldiers but not the civilians without having the AI enemy mow down the civilians they are hidden among.

Also, if/when a next release is done could I suggest a "civilian" unit be included (probably in red and/or green).

And a 3rd suggestion - when editing specific units would it be hard to allow the unit class to be changed - for example changing a barge to a SP artillery class so it can fire that 105 howitzer you just added as indirect artillery?

Double_Deuce
November 27th, 2012, 06:28 PM
Also, if/when a next release is done could I suggest a "civilian" unit be included (probably in red and/or green).
The UN OOB already has civilians. I don't believe you will ever encounter them in generated campaigns against the UN but designers can add them into a scenario for any side using the "Allies" option in the editor.

dmnt
November 29th, 2012, 10:49 AM
Reposting the request from another thread:

Wish: Add movement class "Snow track" for units which are designed to drive in snow, mud and swamp. Give them the same bonus in those terrains as you give for snow vehicle class currently (Bv 206 and similar).

DRG
November 29th, 2012, 11:11 AM
Wish: Add movement class "Snow track" for units which are designed to drive in snow, mud and swamp. Give them the same bonus in those terrains as you give for snow vehicle class currently (Bv 206 and similar).


What possible purpose would be served by duplicating that as a movement class?

Don

dmnt
November 29th, 2012, 11:32 AM
Wish: Add movement class "Snow track" for units which are designed to drive in snow, mud and swamp. Give them the same bonus in those terrains as you give for snow vehicle class currently (Bv 206 and similar).


What possible purpose would be served by duplicating that as a movement class?

Don

There are units which use the Bv 206 (or NA-140 or similar vehicles) as a base but are not of a class snow vehicle.

Finland - obat65:
Units 035-037 NA-140 Nasu TOW, Class 19 - SP ATGM
Unit 334 Nasu SP-Mortar, Class 38 - SP Mortar

Sweden - obat66:
Units 181-182 9cm PvPjbv 2062, Class 33 - Light Amphibian
Units 196-197 PvRbbv 2063, Class 34 - Heavy Amphibian
Units 200-201, PvPjbv 2062 56, Class 34 - Heavy Amphibian
Unit 231-232, Bv 202/206 Ammo, Class 56 - Ammo Carrier

dmnt
November 29th, 2012, 05:23 PM
Here's the total list of what I could find. However I am not familiar with the configuration of BV's around the world so if they had narrower tracks or anything then this doesn't apply to them. Mostly I'm pointing at Chile here.

Netherlands, Italy and Chile probably could get their units reclassified as Snow Vehicles and be fine with it. If the change is doable in code without side effects then in my opinion it is worth doing.

Russia (and previously Soviet Union) has also had equipment similar to this, but seems to be missing from the OOBs. (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/dt-30-vityaz-articulated-tracked-vehicle/ and http://www.unusuallocomotion.com/album/articulated-tracked-vehicles-heavy/tracked-carrier-vityaz-dt-10.html )

nation | unit_no | name | class
-------------------+---------+-----------------+-----------------------
Great Britain (7) | 383 | BV 202 Mortar | 133 - Light SP Mortar
Great Britain (7) | 384 | BV 202 Mortar | 133 - Light SP Mortar
Netherlands (28) | 321 | Bv 202 | 33 - Light Amphibian
Netherlands (28) | 322 | Bv 206 | 33 - Light Amphibian
Netherlands (28) | 323 | BVS10 | 33 - Light Amphibian
Netherlands (28) | 385 | Bv 202 Ammo | 56 - Ammo Carrier
Netherlands (28) | 386 | Bv 206 Ammo | 56 - Ammo Carrier
Norway (29) | 35 | Bv 206N 81mm | 38 - SP Mortar
Norway (29) | 37 | Bv 206N TOW | 129 - Light SP ATGM
Norway (29) | 38 | Bv 202N ENTAC | 19 - SP ATGM
Italy (34) | 203 | Bv 206 EI | 33 - Light Amphibian
Chile (59) | 310 | Bv 206 | 26 - Utility Vehicle
Finland (65) | 35 | NA-140 Nasu TOW | 19 - SP ATGM
Finland (65) | 36 | NA-140 Nasu TOW | 19 - SP ATGM
Finland (65) | 37 | NA-140 Nasu TOW | 19 - SP ATGM
Finland (65) | 334 | Nasu SP-Mortar | 38 - SP Mortar
Sweden (66) | 35 | Bgbv 120 Buffel | 37 - Engineer Tank
Sweden (66) | 181 | 9cm PvPjbv 2062 | 33 - Light Amphibian
Sweden (66) | 182 | 9cm PvPjbv 2062 | 33 - Light Amphibian
Sweden (66) | 196 | PvRbbv 2063 | 34 - Heavy Amphibian
Sweden (66) | 197 | PvRbbv 2063 | 34 - Heavy Amphibian
Sweden (66) | 200 | PvPjbv 2062 56 | 34 - Heavy Amphibian
Sweden (66) | 201 | PvPjbv2062 56TI | 34 - Heavy Amphibian
Sweden (66) | 231 | Bv 202 Ammo | 56 - Ammo Carrier
Sweden (66) | 232 | Bv 206 Ammo | 56 - Ammo Carrier

Dion
November 29th, 2012, 07:45 PM
Tunnels!

dmnt
November 30th, 2012, 05:45 AM
Tunnels!

I'd love the idea of tunnels (and have thought about how great it would to have them), but I don't believe it's doable.

What I would do instead in map editor is to make a 1 hex line bordered by higher ground impossible terrain wherever I need the tunnel. The down side naturally is that there's no protection from attacks from above.

Aeraaa
November 30th, 2012, 07:09 AM
Why it isnt doable?

Just put a mountainous looking terrain with the name "tunnel", which is impervious to artillery and air attacks and more vulnerable to flame weapons. Units will still be visible to it.

dmnt
November 30th, 2012, 08:07 AM
Why it isnt doable?

Just put a mountainous looking terrain with the name "tunnel", which is impervious to artillery and air attacks and more vulnerable to flame weapons. Units will still be visible to it.

I'm a software developer, but not one for this game. Here's a list that comes to my mind:

1) Moving units should know whether they're on top of the tunnel or inside the tunnel. Can you move to hexes outside of the tunnel? How do you go in to the tunnel?

2) Spotting & visibility. How to prevent units in the tunnel from being shown? Is the tunnel a straight line?

3) Great number of changes in Map editor.

4) The concept of SPMBT is "2.5-D", that is that there's the height information but no "depth". It's just a two-dimensional surface with some rules. So a lot of things will be affected.

It just looks too big a change to do.

Mobhack
November 30th, 2012, 08:53 AM
Why it isnt doable?

Just put a mountainous looking terrain with the name "tunnel", which is impervious to artillery and air attacks and more vulnerable to flame weapons. Units will still be visible to it.

I'm a software developer, but not one for this game. Here's a list that comes to my mind:

1) Moving units should know whether they're on top of the tunnel or inside the tunnel. Can you move to hexes outside of the tunnel? How do you go in to the tunnel?

2) Spotting & visibility. How to prevent units in the tunnel from being shown? Is the tunnel a straight line?

3) Great number of changes in Map editor.

4) The concept of SPMBT is "2.5-D", that is that there's the height information but no "depth". It's just a two-dimensional surface with some rules. So a lot of things will be affected.

It just looks too big a change to do.

That's pretty much it.

Andy

DRG
November 30th, 2012, 05:41 PM
There are units which use the Bv 206 (or NA-140 or similar vehicles) as a base but are not of a class snow vehicle.





Checking back to emails Andy and I exchanged last Febuary we had discussed doing this but the basic change had already been made to the snow vehicle class and other things came up and it fell off the radar. It's back on the to-do list now.


Don

Dion
November 30th, 2012, 07:45 PM
One easy solution in regards to tunnels, would to simply make another unit type, like bunkers, but connected with a capacity limit. I'm thinking about the cave and tunnel complexes that the Japanese used in the Pacific theater. Think about all the fortfication zones used throughout the world. I would think it's a very common aspect of warfare.

Aeraaa
December 1st, 2012, 12:37 PM
There are caves in the game (and spider holes and hiding pits etc...), but I dont remember if they can house other units inside them.

dmnt
December 1st, 2012, 03:31 PM
There are caves in the game (and spider holes and hiding pits etc...), but I dont remember if they can house other units inside them.

See North Korea's Cave units:

Class fortifications, armour = 99 except for front.

Finland has units which are of the class fortification and have a carry capacity > 100, i.e. can hold towed guns and their crew.

EpoletovSPR
February 9th, 2014, 02:40 PM
May be increase the cost MP shooting mode button "Z" ?


To do instead of 4-5 volleys 1-2.
This would reduce the effectiveness of fire no LOS.

Suhiir
February 11th, 2014, 07:52 AM
There are caves in the game (and spider holes and hiding pits etc...), but I dont remember if they can house other units inside them.

They can IF they have a "Carry Capacity".
But if a unit enters a "fortification" hex it gets no benefit from that fortification for a turn or so (try moving a unit from hex to hex along a trench line sometime as a test).

Warwick
August 6th, 2014, 08:32 PM
When using two or more artillery observers it is sometimes a bit awkward to keep track of which battery is assigned to which observer particularly with a long list of batteries. Would it be possible to have an extra button in the bombardment screen showing the observer for each artillery piece or battery ? I don't know if it would be possible to implement this or not, has anyone got any other suggestions ?

Regards, Warwick

shahadi
August 7th, 2014, 04:03 PM
When using two or more artillery observers it is sometimes a bit awkward to keep track of which battery is assigned to which observer particularly with a long list of batteries. Would it be possible to have an extra button in the bombardment screen showing the observer for each artillery piece or battery ? I don't know if it would be possible to implement this or not, has anyone got any other suggestions ?

Regards, Warwick

"...has anyone got any other suggestions?" Yeah. What I do is assign artillery fires by arty obs with the LOS to target, right, just like everyone else. So, anytime I have to reassign a fire mission, I check the assigned observer BEFORE assigning the mission.

What you must do is too make sure you select the observer with the LOS to target before opening the Bombardment screen. Once, you've opened the Bombardment screen, check the lower left of the screen to make sure the correct observer is selected.

One of the elements that make winSpMBT exciting is that the art of battle management is interwoven within it's fabric, such as plotting artillery fires.

EpoletovSPR
January 3rd, 2015, 05:15 PM
It would be great if all armed helicopters (Mi-8, UH-1D and etc.) placed in section "Gunship".
No armed helicopters leave as is.

Armed helicopter very effective in SP.
For them, the need to limit air strikes.

Who would use house rules for their limitations.

Suhiir
January 3rd, 2015, 09:57 PM
Depends a LOT who you're fighting.
VS modern Chinese/Russian forces attack helos are less then useful because of all the VIRSS.

EpoletovSPR
January 4th, 2015, 12:05 AM
Armed helicopters in the SPMBT in unlimited quantities decide the outcome of the battle. Unless the enemy is ready.
If you have a conventional land forces (tanks, infantry, armored personnel carriers, howitzers, AA-defence, little helicopters), the opponent will sweep you.


Enemy air defenses will be diverted (entice shots) flying helicopters (fly far and fast :rolleyes:) and then destroyed.
Enemy armed helicopter (best anti helicopter air defense) will be destroyed by our helicopters from a distance 1-2 hex.
Next, the detection of enemy ground forces and their destruction with impunity their ground troops backed by helicopters.

In SPMBT in any armed helicopters are very strong with the skillful use.
It is not in their ATGM-weapon.
Machine guns and Hydra, S-5, S-8 very effective at a distance of 1-2 hex.
Such mechanics SPMBT that the armed helicopter is capable of a lot. :cool:

Imp
January 11th, 2015, 09:31 PM
I used to play a guy that liked using helos, the totally gamey easy defence is to buy loads of the cheapest fast AA armed vehicle. Just swarm him driving the survivors adjacent before opening fire. Heavy losses but they are so cheap you will win. Becomes harder if they have TI but if most don't you can hide behind your wrecks to help close range.

Your really just doing what most people do with helos, draw fire with the cheaper stuff to protect the important ones.

EpoletovSPR
January 17th, 2015, 02:02 PM
Thank you, I know it.

Steel Panthers so good that you do not know what awaits you in the new battle.
SP a great replayability !

At the moment helicopters in the right hands can be too much.

This reduces replayability so I always have to spend points on the powerful air defense.

What I propose to deliver us, experienced players on the house rules.
Newcomers to the Steel Panthers did not know these nuances will be upset at first (with the words - those stupid helicopters). :)

Imp
January 17th, 2015, 03:12 PM
Thank you, I know it.

Steel Panthers so good that you do not know what awaits you in the new battle.
SP a great replayability !

At the moment helicopters in the right hands can be too much.

This reduces replayability so I always have to spend points on the powerful air defense.

What I propose to deliver us, experienced players on the house rules.
Newcomers to the Steel Panthers did not know these nuances will be upset at first (with the words - those stupid helicopters). :)

With people you play regularly its easy to have house rules, make yourself up some as a document & send it with your email.

With regards to helos I just used to have a rule that you could only use helos every 3 or 4 games as planes are far more common.

Others can do related but make up your own.

If you want to use a lot of helos all units except the HQ must start loaded

Ammo units can only be used for one purpose, you are allowed to rename them so you know which is which & can only resupply the correct unit types.

Arty AAA Helo ATGM Tank Troop

Helos are very dangerous, they are also pretty rare, unfortunately people tend to use them to much just like they tend to buy the best tank, ATGM etc.
The game doesn't control force makeup that's what your house rules are for to give you battles you think are realistic.

EpoletovSPR
April 26th, 2015, 02:13 PM
In winSP need horizontally.
Now, there are complaints from people, it is difficult to distinguish the relief map.


Like this:

http://i454.photobucket.com/albums/qq261/Epoletov/Horizontali_winSP_zpsbcserp0i.png

DRG
April 26th, 2015, 04:31 PM
That is what the Hex grid is for. Press '.' and the grid appears making this boundaries clearer . Then press '.' and go back to a non hex grid map. I NEVER play without the hex grid...... to each his own but there is NO way we are adding in what you suggest when a quick press of '.' gives you what you want.

As for " Now, there are complaints from people, it is difficult to distinguish the relief map"....... REALLY ?? the map has not changed in over a decade. How could these complaints suddenly materialize now ?


Don

EpoletovSPR
April 26th, 2015, 04:36 PM
As for " Now, there are complaints from people, it is difficult to distinguish the relief map"....... REALLY ?? the map has not changed in over a decade. How could these complaints suddenly materialize now ?


Don

Come new players in the Russian-speaking community (S.P.R.). :)
I bring you their requests and ideas.

http://spanther.narod.ru/

EpoletovSPR
December 2nd, 2016, 12:59 PM
My colleague from Russia made a video with their ideas for improving the Steel Pantners.

https://youtu.be/gfsvbQJwPYE

Advanced Scar asked me to say further.
With the last sentence he asks tool to translate the game into other languages.

Imp
December 2nd, 2016, 08:18 PM
Advanced Scar asked me to say further.
With the last sentence he asks tool to translate the game into other languages.

Game guide can be run through a translator, wont be perfect.

Units etc. its not straight forward some names do not simply translate as the West calls it something else.

Boring but not hard to edit OOB, if several people pick a country each to change names on & share them would not take that long.

I change the names of some formations in WWII, makes it far easier for me to identify quickly on purchase screen. I don't bother changing unit names though.

IronDuke99
December 2nd, 2016, 10:02 PM
For what it is worth I think attack helicopters are a little too good against AFV's and a little less effective than they should be against infantry.

Suhiir
December 3rd, 2016, 04:18 AM
I've always had a problem with machineguns.

They're VERY effective at suppression, not so good at actually killing anything. Since their advent machineguns have been the #2 bane (after artillery) of infantry, but in the game they're more of a nuisance.

IronDuke99
December 3rd, 2016, 05:51 PM
Agree with Suhiir on MG's

Even a relatively primitive attack helicopters, with MG's, could really wreck an enemy force if they have low training/moral and lack effective AA, such as Manpads.

In terms of something very modern like an Apache go check out some of the YouTube videos of them in action against men on foot, not just the overwhelming firepower, but how much they can see in all conditions...

Aeraaa
December 10th, 2016, 07:02 AM
I actually find the machineguns quite alright and I disagree with making them (or any small arms) deadlier than now.

Remember that what MG have over rifle squads is range. They can engage the latter between 600-1200 meters (more if .50 cal MGs) and not get any return fire. And the reason why they do not mow down infantry is that the latter is always in cover when under fire, even when in open ground (they find whatever small obstacle or ditch there is, they are always in the prone position). And something else. The fact that a rifle squad has been spotted does not mean its members have been spotted. It may sound like an oxymoron, but what may have been spotted is increased activity, a single soldier etc (in that department another game, Combat Mission series is better at simulating this). So the MG (or any other weapon system) may hose an area with few exposed enemies.

My thoughts on the matter.

IronDuke99
December 10th, 2016, 09:53 AM
Attack helicopters, with cannon, should, most certainly, IMHO, be more deadly to infantry, than they are now in the game, SF Machine Guns should, again in my view, make it a lot harder to move than they do now in the game.

jp10
December 10th, 2016, 12:14 PM
IMO, effectiveness of any weapon against a specific target type is subject to too many situational circumstances to support generalization.
I believe the current conflicts in open, arid or mountainous terrain has magnified the effectiveness of Helibourne weapon platforms against Infantry, especially at night. Slow movement, lack of concealment or detection range reducing terrain/vegetation have produced videos of effective cannon fire against dismounted targets especially when in close formation in darkness or restrictive terrain.
Attack Helicopters outside of air superiority situations rely on staying on the edge of the battle area and making pop-up attacks on targets worth the expenditure of expensive weapons. The cannons firstly were thought of as close range defense for the helo.
AC helos are IMO, not stable AC platforms and are more suppressive in effects against dispersed Infantry in other than clear terrain and are acceptable as modeled in game.

IronDuke99
December 10th, 2016, 06:06 PM
I think you could make a fairly strong case that attack helicopters in the game are not vulnerable enough to AAA and manpads certainly. That would also serve to make them less effective against more advanced enemies.In my view even small arms fire, at close range, should have a very small chance of damaging a gunship and either bringing it down or making it bugger off.

I still think, in general, they are a bit too effective against Armour and not effective enough against soft vehicles and infantry, especially when the targets are moving. With regard to special conditions making the Apache look especially deadly: Yes and no. Jungle/heavy woodland and, even more urban environments, would certainly make them less effective, but I can tell you that even fairly primitive gunships, with medium or heavy MG's, can in daylight on fairly open terrain, wreck a force of low training and moral, that lacks much anti aircraft defence, dug in or not.

It is also a case of suppression. If you are an insurgent and in cover and not spotted a gunship being around is probably going to stop you moving, and firing if you are using your brain. If you are not using your brain it might make you run away and that will likely get you killed too...

And no I'm not really talking about WWIII scenarios here between major nations(I got bored with most large scale MBT games some time ago because they are always, accurately enough, so bloody that it is difficult to get a win that means much if the forces are balanced).

In reality of course forces are not often well balanced, one side or the other will have better training and/or kit, more men and/or intelligence, etc. To me those are the more interesting MBT type games, as I have written about elsewhere on here, ie, using assets and skill to win a tactical victory, without losing half your own force.

Imp
December 11th, 2016, 07:57 AM
Just out if interest bought 6 Apache,30mm, Hellfire, 2X DAGR config
Map fairly open trees woods hills.
Moved to take up positions on first turn,
Set ranges to 20hexes.
After that did nothing did not move or fire in my turn, just hit end turn.

Opposing side no AAA assets
Platoon tanks
Company APCs
2 Companies of trucks as soft targets
2 Companies dismounted soldiers.

Results once in range, one vehicle might have survived for 2 hexes all rest killed once in range.
Autocannon got a high percentage with around 66% hit chance, hellfire finished with 90%hit if missed.
Infantry hit chance around 34-40%.
After a few turns probably lost about 25% of their infantry & getting any to advance was getting difficult.
As said this was all reaction fire I never targeted a unit or moved after turn 1 I just let the enemy advance.

FASTBOAT TOUGH
December 11th, 2016, 03:11 PM
We must not forget the other factors dealing with AH & other Helos in the game...1) The era your playing in since Vietnam the modern helicopter is so much more advanced now. I.E.

2) Better armor protection. I n Vietnam helicopter losses were so high & with the HUEY in particular, they locally reinforced the "deck" with steel plates increase the protection of not only the HUEY but the troops they were carrying. This type of protection is standard to include spuall liners etc., armored cockpits and armor protection around vital areas around the engine. The VIPER is a great example of this with armor protection around the engine up to and including against 23mm AA rounds.

3) EW ,besides the major improvements in this area you have to include the much improved avionics to include speed. These factors together make them again, over time, a harder target to shot-down. The APACHE newer models (And some others.) are designed to a limited degree (Within weapons range.) to take on/down a fighter. Their anti-air capability uses the same missile our fighters which is why the 64E carry's two of them as a standard load out normally.

4) FCS, the LONGBOW system by example again has a huge catalogue of targets embedded and continually updated of MBT's, IFV/APC's, Light vehicles and Infantry. It classifies the the type I.E. MBT/T-90S etc. prioritizes the threats in the area and attacks the target based on available onboard weapons availability.
http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/LONGBOWFireControlRadar/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.northropgrumman.com/capabilities/longbowfirecontrolradar/documents/longbow.pdf

5) WEAPONS, also much improved, "shoot and forget" ATGW are the norm now though we can't simulate that in the game. Not only does the modern helo act as a weapons stable platform so are the cannons onboard, so in this I strongly agree that the cannons in general against infantry in particular needs to be improved the evidence on YOU TUBE and others is overwhelming in backing up this discussion point.

6) With all the above it has been my long experience that the AA from all types against helos it has been very successful. My battles with the AI are well within the hundreds with this game alone (Remember, I have freely posted out here over the years my Campaigns normally run 21, 23 or 25 games, sometimes higher based on opponent OOB.) A player issue I think was addressed a couple of years that it was to easy for infantry to shoot down a helo, I believe modifiers were made to make this harder. Bottom-line I've had a lot of burnt out airframes left on the deck.

7) EXPERIENCE, you have to treat them like tanks, by using terrain masking, position & sighting them with good LOS's again this requires knowing the ground. Ease them into combat the experience level gained after a 3-4 games will pay dividends for you later. As has been mentioned already there are so many variables involved. I'm not charging in with them unless it appears the battle is going my way, I use them to cover my flanks and center gaps depending on the numbers of units involved the AI will and has sent tanks into my rear away from the main battle(s) I believe they call that a diversion the goal are my "home" victory hexes, retreating units (Loves to kill off armor crews.) and I've seen behavior (Maybe just coincidence.) to suggest it's looking for my HQ unit to where I've had to pull them off the map. I do play the AI at it's hardest settings.

8) SURVIVORBILITY Something that still needs to addressed for crews and personnel. This was discussed at great length a within the last couple of years I believe in this forum. Well worth your time if not done so.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir
December 11th, 2016, 05:58 PM
Try a test with machinegun only armed helos vs infantry.

Their utility vs vehicles has never been a problem as far as I'm concerned.

Imp
December 12th, 2016, 12:47 AM
Try a test with machinegun only armed helos vs infantry.

Their utility vs vehicles has never been a problem as far as I'm concerned.

Not testing but l think there are 2 issues.
Firstly vehicle mounted MGs do not as far as I am aware have a blast radius so they fo not perform as well as an infantry weapon.
Secondly MG armed helos tend to have fairly poor stats like rangefinder & fire control.

In real life idealy what range would a MG armed helo start strafing at?
Same thing goes for the Apache videos what range are they engaging at? Virtualy all of them there is no AAA they are hovering or very slow moving.

Tried to find a vid of an Apache taking RPG fire from a cragy mountain, took them a while to locate the 2 targets & get them due to manuvering & the good cover as in big rocks.

Regarding MGs I dont have an issue with how they work, yes they tend to cause more suppresion than kills but on the whole they kill better than an infantry squad.
However once the unit is no longer in good order or if its doing something silly like tank riding they can be effective.
Current game I have at least a infantry company approaching along a lightly guarded flank. Moved 2 machine gun units to slow firing at around 17 to 20 hexes.
First couple of turns not much effect pinned or broke a few units with little or no losses to them but now they are all grouped together I am picking targets that have adjacent units. Virtualy every shot gets a kill in the effected area and the advance has ground to a halt, remember a hex is 50m & I have stopped an advance over a 500m front & am now picking them off.

In the game infantry manned MGs are very good for the above & letting your squads engage in relative safety after the MGs fire because the targets have their heads down.
If you want to kill quicker especially in good cover use GLs but ammo is a big issue normaly.
Best infantry killer though tends to be a modern autocannon equiped IFV parked up out of RPG range, makes attacking dug in targets a far simpler process due to their high to hit values.

IronDuke99
December 12th, 2016, 01:24 AM
In my opinion SF machine guns, manned by good troops, should be able to mostly stop leg infantry movement, in good visibility and in open terrain, at about 400 yards at the very least, ie, infantry should go to ground and pretty much not be able to get forward without cover, until the SF MG is taken out. Bear in mind that most assault rifles are total rubbish at much beyond 300 yards, and that they are also weaker at penetrating cover than rounds like the 7.62mm NATO or older .303 British. (The main reason the British reintroduced a 7.62mm rifle for limited issue to infantry platoons a few years back).

I will also stick to what I said originally; all gunship helicopters should be better at killing, and routing, leg infantry than they are now, especially less well trained forces lacking much in the way of air defence. With earlier, medium and heavy MG armed helicopters, lacking advanced sighting systems, this should naturally only apply in fairly open terrain.

FASTBOAT TOUGH
December 12th, 2016, 03:17 AM
I'll leave you with the following two videos. note that on some of attack scenes the enemy isn't even moving. It is safe to say 1) These Apache's are quiet. and 2) The ranges are out there, this is especially apparent in the second/third videos again note the box on the bottom center of of the target screen, look to the upper right corner that's your range marker to target. I would think in yards as we tend to indicate meters when used.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwnYTfDdGu0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XryPZvCpcic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaufhZv84Gk

Go for a ride in a UK APACHE...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vMDy7X94fc

The last is of the AC-130 gunship from the first video lower left you'll see the weapons selected area (From a newer version.)showing rounds expended as well. Note the weapons firing discipline. Also remember the AC-130 carries a full armory for replenishment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5lW9K_-VG0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSOG9GHVV0c

How it all works...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOe-TEJlV4E

How tough is the A-10? One pilots story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7JM82fa5ZY

Also that Thread mentioned earlier is in WinSPMBT main forum page. It's on Page 6 top as "Helicopter armor" started by sabresandy.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

scorpio_rocks
December 12th, 2016, 06:07 AM
Go for a ride in a UK APACHE...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vMDy7X94fc


Wow - that's quite a ride! Feel sorry for the poor (German?) civilians being buzzed, don't think they would be allowed to do NoE flying over populated parts of UK.

P.S. are you sure its a Brit crew? Don't think our crews wear camo flight suits?

DRG
December 12th, 2016, 10:32 AM
Go for a ride in a UK APACHE...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vMDy7X94fc


Wow - that's quite a ride! Feel sorry for the poor (German?) civilians being buzzed, don't think they would be allowed to do NoE flying over populated parts of UK.

P.S. are you sure its a Brit crew? Don't think our crews wear camo flight suits?

It would appear they do.......

http://thumbs.media.smithsonianmag.com//filer/d2/3d/d23d0634-5a94-40c4-9839-93d8a92bb2d2/apache_helicopter_pilot.jpg__800x600_q85_crop.jpg

http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/hardest-to-fly-87132849/

IronDuke99
December 12th, 2016, 10:36 AM
Go for a ride in a UK APACHE...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vMDy7X94fc


Wow - that's quite a ride! Feel sorry for the poor (German?) civilians being buzzed, don't think they would be allowed to do NoE flying over populated parts of UK.

P.S. are you sure its a Brit crew? Don't think our crews wear camo flight suits?

Nope don't think that is a British Apache. Mind you I've known very much more annoying helicopters than that one (in far, far, larger numbers) flying around for hours on end covering the Melbourne Grand Prix in Australia, and you get that bloody annoying F1 whine too. And those helicopters are not doing a damn thing to defend anyone from anything...

This is a British Apache.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBZaV81BmJ4

Suhiir
December 12th, 2016, 07:56 PM
Well ... that's definitely NOE flying.

FASTBOAT TOUGH
December 12th, 2016, 10:27 PM
Ahh s**t, posted the wrong *&^gg%# one! Thanks for the catch I guess that would make that a Eurocopter TIGER variant. Thanks for the catch Don!
http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/eurocopter_tiger.htm

Back to writing Christmas Cards for the Ireland gang. Thanks for the diversion!!

By the way can we "say" **** here, or just write about it!?!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Guess not couldn't remember, guess I'll just keep writing about. :rolleyes:

shahadi
December 13th, 2016, 01:34 PM
As for game improvements of the attack helos, I would like to be able to have the game return the hit percentage of the weapon selected instead of the weapon in slot #1. With the attack helos, inactivating all weapons save the missiles, the game returns the hit chance of weapon slot #1, normally the cannon.

I am not sure how it could be done, however, selecting weapons using the "W" key maybe a start. When a weapon in selected using that key, the game will return the selected weapon's hit percentage to target. This saves the player from having to calculate using pencil and paper the hit percentage taken as a ratio of weapons max range and range to target.

=====

DRG
December 13th, 2016, 01:49 PM
OK this is a question for everybody but "shahadi".........how may of you actually......... "


calculate using pencil and paper the hit percentage taken as a ratio of weapons max range and range to target.

=====


??

Those calcs are and will remain a general estimation of overall hit chance to give the player a rough idea if they are wasting their shots or if there is some chance of a hit and you could get a report back of 100% but that is only based on the targeting unit---it does not take into account what the target might do based on it's experience, morale, damage etc etc....that isn't taken into account until the shot is fired.

IDK about Andy but I rarely....and I MEAN rarely...pay any attention to that message at all

Don

Mobhack
December 13th, 2016, 03:09 PM
The to-hit number?

If I am cycling round a set of potential targets and one is way ahead of the others then I know to take that one. But then again, if the lower number is say a T-55 and the higher is an APC, the T-55 might take precedence.

But I dont sit there for hours obsessing if I should go for the shot at 12% or the one at 17%... its neither here nor there.

If the shot needs to be taken, then its taken. Simples.

The to-hit chance reported by the T key sequence is only a basic "gunner's guestimate" as it does not have any of the random numbers generated, and its for the slot 1 (primary) weapon. The hit %age displayed on actually firing has had the random effects applied, which can be for the better or worse. If the random numbers were run then users would complain that when they switch away and back, the number shown for target X yo-yos, confusing the end user and so then "wah boo-hoo I found a :bug:"!..

Imp
December 13th, 2016, 07:35 PM
Use occasionaly as a rough guide especialy if changed from WWll to modern era but on the whole you just develop a feel for the unit based on its stats.
Attack helos if they have moved more than a couple of hexes I would need a good reason to use the missile rather than wait till next turn for the shot.

Suhiir
December 13th, 2016, 11:35 PM
OK this is a question for everybody but "shahadi".........how may of you actually......... "

IDK about Andy but I rarely....and I MEAN rarely...pay any attention to that message at all

Don
I never take it at face value, in it's current state as a guideline it works fine.

FASTBOAT TOUGH
December 14th, 2016, 01:15 AM
I like using it mostly with less experienced tank/or any other anti tank component. Reason for this is simple, I want to build up those units experience level as fast as possible, especially for a previously badly damaged unit/or a replacement to one of my core units. The driver here for me is the length of my campaigns as discussed already. I will use my more experienced core units to deal the bigger threat T-80's lurking amongst the T-55's. It's simply an aid that I'm not totally bound by as each situation is different, but still probably use around ~75% of the time for the above situation. I find if my core units are intact it's not as big a deal but, either way, I find little to no difference in time savings maybe because like I play Chess, I'm looking 2-4 moves ahead. And I like "overlapping" my units during the initial deployment phase for the above stated purpose and use as well.

I guess that makes me a "technical" player going back to my many years of die cut board playing wargames from Avalon Hill and SPI mostly I guess with many over nighters included. Couple of my favorites from SPI...
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/8725/red-star-white-star
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/8319/sixth-fleet

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

IronDuke99
December 14th, 2016, 06:27 PM
I used to have 'Air Assault on Crete' when I was at school, by Avalon Hill (published late 1970's?)If I remember rightly it had a invasion of Malta game too. If only I knew then what I know now...

Suhiir
December 15th, 2016, 04:59 PM
Ahhhh yes ... I cut my teeth on Tactics II (mid 1960s).

Imp
December 15th, 2016, 10:09 PM
There were lots of great games, problem was space especially if playing friends over a few weeks.

Suhiir
December 16th, 2016, 01:35 AM
Yeah, when I was in the service several of us were playing Dunnigan's "War in the East". We got enough room by "paneling" one wall with sheet steel and using magnetic "Counter Clips".

Wound up being rather amusing. Traditionally in the USMC Friday morning is the weekly quarters inspection and more often then not rather then a critique of our cleaning we got one on the current state of the game and suggestions :)

rel19
September 18th, 2021, 08:55 AM
In videorecords we can see that ATGM launch makes far less smoke and flash than tank gun shot. So to spot ATGM vehicle on fire should be harder than tank. But in SP MBT this mechanics is opposite.
Could a separate setting for ATGM fire spotting be developed?

whdonnelly
September 18th, 2021, 01:30 PM
At one point, US doctrine was to immediately fire at the ATGM site because the missile firing was detectable and flew slow enough to be disrupted by making the operator duck. Probably 30 years ago now, but the TOW battery would set off a Claymore mine on either or both sides of the firing position simultaneously with the missile launch to mask the real location. Just bringing it up because someone out there thought the launch was easily detectable.

Mobhack
September 18th, 2021, 07:32 PM
Our WOMBAT or MOBAT - can't recall which as we had 2 A/T platoons, one equipped with each in 1/51 Highland - could have a charge or charges rigged up that went off with the gun to "spoof" where the actual firing point was. That was mentioned in some briefing we got on the use of them.

zovs66
September 19th, 2021, 09:18 AM
When I was in the service (1987-1981) as an M1A1 tank driver in basic that is how they taught us to avoid ATGM attacks, have the gunner shoot the coax and the loader shoot the loader 240 mg at the smoke where the ATGM was fired from and for the driver to engage in zig zig movements. That was the theory and practice in the late 80s. Not sure how effective it would have been in reality. Fortunately for myself when we fought the Iraqis in 91 I never saw any ATGM attacks from them, it was all tank on tank action very much like World War Two and we had the sense of how the Germans tankers may have felt in the early part of the war. We did feel invincible in a way, at least after our first combats, it it was due to combined arms, we were glad for our artillery and air/help support and all our training. We trained for a large war which thankfully never happened but combat nowadays is much much different, I don’t think (hopefully) we will ever see combat on the scale of WW2 or WW1, but the smaller sized conflicts will be just as deadly and intense and let’s pray that no idiot ever fires a nuke in anger.

Just my thoughts and opinions.

Aeraaa
September 20th, 2021, 02:45 PM
When I was in the service (1987-1981) as an M1A1 tank driver in basic that is how they taught us to avoid ATGM attacks, have the gunner shoot the coax and the loader shoot the loader 240 mg at the smoke where the ATGM was fired from and for the driver to engage in zig zig movements. That was the theory and practice in the late 80s. Not sure how effective it would have been in reality. Fortunately for myself when we fought the Iraqis in 91 I never saw any ATGM attacks from them, it was all tank on tank action very much like World War Two and we had the sense of how the Germans tankers may have felt in the early part of the war. We did feel invincible in a way, at least after our first combats, it it was due to combined arms, we were glad for our artillery and air/help support and all our training. We trained for a large war which thankfully never happened but combat nowadays is much much different, I don’t think (hopefully) we will ever see combat on the scale of WW2 or WW1, but the smaller sized conflicts will be just as deadly and intense and let’s pray that no idiot ever fires a nuke in anger.

Just my thoughts and opinions.


I forgot where I read it, but an online report of an armor officer that fought in ODS said that there was an incident where two BRDMs with ATGMs fired at their tanks. They were quickly spotted and knocked out before the missiles came anywhere close to their tanks (and obviously hit the dirt w/o any guidance).

MarkSheppard
October 6th, 2021, 04:43 PM
My biggest suggestion is to improve the map-maker.

Currently, with the enhanced CD edition, you can set the random map-maker to keep the elevation map and instead place random scenery over the blank elevation map.

This is intended to improve VENHOLA map imports.

It works pretty good for inland maps, but what about river/island/beach maps?

Perhaps this function could be improved to also respect water hexes that have been placed on the map as well; not overwriting them?

It would make river/island/beach map creation easier.

DRG
October 6th, 2021, 07:15 PM
The map maker is already LIGHT YEARS ahead of any other SP based game but apparently, we just can't do enough to make everyone happy... but really... in what reality is everyone happy ??

However. For water maps ( 2019 addition )

Extended Game version owners Only. You can now flood fill areas of zero elevation with deep water using the " key in the map editors. This was primarily added to be used with the Venhola map generator but it can be used for hand made maps as well. For shoreline maps it saves a great deal of time but be aware that sometimes beach areas are recorded by Venhola as the same level as the water so those areas and any areas of shallow water you may want troops to wade through need to be added manually

MarkSheppard
October 6th, 2021, 08:29 PM
Don, I know about the " key for 2019 CD edition.

The reason I raised the request is that currently, if you import a map from VENHOLA and use the " key in the standalone map editor; you get a nice filled map with Level 0 = water.

But when you select MAP GENERATOR and try:

KEEP CONTOURS button = Generate a random map using the current contours

the water hexes get reset to land hexes when you try to use the current map contours to generate a random map with those contours, but random map cover.

Is it possible to add a "KEEP WATER" option for that option? :confused:

DRG
October 7th, 2021, 08:15 AM
Maybe...

MarkSheppard
October 13th, 2021, 07:41 PM
Honestly, at this point in lifecycle; you've pretty much covered everything in WW2 and MBT; except for really weird edge cases (Switzerland in WW2); which is too much work for the amount of gameplay (a scenario or two) you'd get from them.

Perhaps a little bit more detail in the documentation, such as the proportion of Tank Types Germany had at certain points?

POLAND 1939:

Pz I 38.13%
Pz II 44.16%
Pz 35(t) 4.39%
Pz 38(t) 2.16%
Pz III 3.41%
Pz IV 7.76%

Total “Obsolete” Tanks (Panzer I/II) 82.29%
Total “Modern” Tanks (Panzer 35/38/III/IV) 17.71%

For the people who like to put together long campaigns, etc that are a bit more historically accurate rather than buying all Pz38T

Karagin
October 13th, 2021, 08:59 PM
I think the games are great. The only thing I wish for is more building icons with an Oriental flavor for WW2 and MBT but that is just a wish and maybe porting some of the bunker/forts over from WW2 to MBT, but hey you guys have given us the ability to refight all the Green Army Men wars of our youth and to play the general with the battles. The best thing going. Also, for me, I have learned a lot of history and interesting stuff from the write-ups and the topics since the first days of this game.

Imp
October 14th, 2021, 05:15 PM
Honestly, at this point in lifecycle; you've pretty much covered everything in WW2 and MBT; except for really weird edge cases (Switzerland in WW2); which is too much work for the amount of gameplay (a scenario or two) you'd get from them.

Perhaps a little bit more detail in the documentation, such as the proportion of Tank Types Germany had at certain points?

POLAND 1939:

Pz I 38.13%
Pz II 44.16%
Pz 35(t) 4.39%
Pz 38(t) 2.16%
Pz III 3.41%
Pz IV 7.76%

Total “Obsolete” Tanks (Panzer I/II) 82.29%


Total “Modern” Tanks (Panzer 35/38/III/IV) 17.71%

For the people who like to put together long campaigns, etc that are a bit more historically accurate rather than buying all Pz38T

While it is a great idea it’s a mammoth task & varies by theatre. For WWII just get a copy of the rarity factors from Advanced Squad Leader or similar. Setting up a few battles with AI purchase to see what it buys is not perfect but probably closer than what most people buy.