Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !

[Epoletov_SPR]

Attention!

Post #559118 - a variant with bad machine translation.

The best translation of ideas is below under the list in post # 561316


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





The information to reflection for modification in WinSP MBT/WW2.

It only offers, ideas, can be pushed they you on their entering into game with new patches.

We understand that there are difficulties in their realization and only suggest to choose what probably to embody.

It is developed by participants of club SPR.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Opportunity to choose at shooting type of a shell (HE, AP, HEAT...).

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Opportunity of a choice of the party map at deploy armies in a mode " creation of fight for two person " (for example now Russian almost always are on east side map).

-----------------------------------------------------------------


To continue numbering scenarios (MBT).

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To make trenches more passable for vehicles (now this anti-tank obstacle).

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To increase protective ch aracteristics for dug round vehicle (a round entrenchment).

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To exclude ability to be dug round vehicle in trenches.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To enter an opportunity to be dug round to infantry during fight, as in SPWaW.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
To enter system of orders as in SPWaW - Command Control (disconnected in preferences).

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To modernize op-the filter of fire, having entered a choice for shooting on aircraft.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
To clean smokes at crews. When you run from the padded machine often there is no opportunity to take smoke pomegranates, now the crew of smokes has less than at section infantry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To increase quantity weapon slots.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To reduce cost Self-Propelled ATGM.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To reconsider cost of transport helicopters with weapons (MG, no guided rockets) aside increases.
Now these helicopters can be in lots in fight (there is no restriction in air strikes) and they are not less effective, than attack helicopters.

-----------------------------------------------------------------


To enter an opportunity to build bridges during fight (pontoon, mechanical sliding).

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To enter units (engineering) capable to blow up bridges (now it can only artillery).

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To enter for each kind of the weapon, the machine, branch an individual sound, and different sounds (especially for the weapon) are better some.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To lower opportunities thermal imegine (increase in cost in points,reduction of accuracy at shooting, strengthening of influence of a smoke (phosphorus smoke) on ability to find out targets).

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To enter marks units from one platoon, company (as in SPWaW). It is visible where the commander and its subordinated soldiers, machines.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To change display of the information about units the opponent: it is visible from what shoot (AK, M-16, MG...), but not who (recruits, veterans, Rangers, National Guards...)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
To clean function of display of presence of a landing of a/cargo in closed (with a roof) transports (helicopters, vehicles, the ships).

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To clean an opportunity of renaming units in fight.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To resolve to helicopters in the sped up XX km/h movement only forward and forward and aside on a course of movement (sector in 90 degrees). The dispersed helicopter cannot make a turn on a place.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To enter artillery guided shells targeting by means of forvard observer (FO).

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To reduce radius supression (Z - button) for MG-units up to 1 hex (now 2 hex).
Now it is not necessary to artillery if to take much MG-units probably easily supression all armies of the opponent and then also it is easy to destroy them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To add still weapons for unit (now 4 slot to make 5-6 slot).

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To lower speed Engineer / Mineclear to tanks (so their work on mine clearing will be shown. And a smaller maneuverability because of the additional equipment).

-----------------------------------------------------------------

[RecruitMonty]

Was denn?

[RecruitMonty]

What I mean to say is, perhaps you should re-consider what you want tosay and then run it by someone who is fluent in English, I would be glad to help. Then re-post it and ask others what they think (suggestions etc) so that more people can get involved.

It might be an idea to PM the mods first (Don and/or Mobhack). If you edit the text into something fluent and legible first and the forward it to the mods then that would be even better.

I know how it feels to type/write in a foreign language, it is a real pain getting your point across.

PM me if you want some help re-formating what you have written thus far.

[Marek_Tucan]

Epoletov_SPR said:
To reduce radius supression (Z - button) for MG-units up to 1 hex (now 2 hex).
Now it is not necessary to artillery if to take much MG-units probably easily supression all armies of the opponent and then also it is easy to destroy them.




Will try to respond to more points later, this just caught my eye http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

The "blast radius" for machineguns is relatively recent addition and it was introduced after a lot of considerations - it represents fact that MG's were really great "suppression builders", esp. against infantry formations. Also it represent facts that MMG's and HMG's were often intentionally fired to create a beaten zone, not pinpointing targets, but just spraying and praying. And sometimes they did even have special accessories to be more effective at it.
About the most elaborate was a HMG twin used in Czechoslovakian fortifications. Not only all fortification main weapons had a blindfire aiming device, allowing them to lay down suppressive fire on almost any spot in fire arc (and they were trained to do so), the HMG twin actually did have two options of weapon set up - both HMG's being coaxial or one being slightly knocked off the alignment to create even wider beaten zone.
So, this behavior of MG's (and only those in MG teams and in fixed AAA IIRC) is not a bug, it's a feature and realistical one. Generally, 9 times out of 10 when infantry got under HMG fire, they did hit the dust and waited for arty to suppress the machineguns.

[DRG]

RecruitMonty said:
It might be an idea to PM the mods first (Don and/or Mobhack).



NO... DO NOT "PM the mods first" !

I do not want personal mail.

Don

[RecruitMonty]

Oh, sorry, forget that last bit.

Sorry about that Don. I forgot.

[Epoletov_SPR]

2: Recruit Monty: Thanks for the offered help !

Has written to you in PM.

[RecruitMonty]

Ok, PM received. I will send it back shortly.

[RecruitMonty]

I do agree with a number of the points put forward. Accurate and appropriate sounds for instance have always been my major area of modification. It would also be neat to be able to pick what Ammo you are using on the bigger guns.
Adding more weapons slots though, If I remember correctly isn't that totaly unfeasable. Even then you would have to work on every unit and those of us who have mods on the go would be totally screwed. Back to square one I should say.
The solution, one that others have used, is to combine weapons or to create multiple weapons in one slot. I think that is already in place for some types of weapons. Having said that another way round, at least with the infantry, is to just create another unit with a different weapons loadout.

[Epoletov_SPR]

Has written to you in PM.

Translation of ideas will be soon published.

[PlasmaKrab]

Regarding weapon slots, there are ways to deal with the shortage if you're ready to coope with some minor inaccuracies.
For instance TMGs and CMGs are often redundant.
Also, AP and Sabot ammo give two main anti-armor ammo variants to some tank/AT guns and autocannons, which can then be applied to more units over time. One good example of that is the early 105 and 125mm tank guns. If you consider that the AP range increases with the technology level, you can use the AP and sabot slot for two different rounds (e.g. APDS and APFSDS), which would not be used simultaneously in the same unit, but can end up figuring two "weapons" for different dates.
These methods have already been used in some cases IIRC.

[Epoletov_SPR]

I thank for help Recruit Monty !

************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** *************

The information to reflection for modification in WinSP MBT/WW2.

It only offers, ideas, can be pushed they you on their entering into game with new patches.

We understand that there are difficulties in their realization and only suggest to choose what probably to embody.

It is developed by participants of club SPR.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The ability to pick which kind of shell is being used when in combat (HE, AP, HEAT etc) would be very much appreciated. Being able to choose which kind of ammo the tank, anti-tank gun etc can fire would avoid less effective rounds being automatically picked (a less powerful AP shell being picked over a more powerful HEAT shell).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The ability to choose which side (East or west) armies deploy on, perhaps also a North and South option wouldn’t go amiss either. As it stands the Russians (for example) tend to always be placed on the eastern side of the map.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It would also be nice if the Scenarios in WinSPMBT at the end of the list were numbered.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Making the trenches less of a hindrance for vehicles (Vehicles almost always become immobilized when crossing trenches, including tracked ones) would also be a good idea. Either they, the trenches, should be considered as Infantry entrenchments or as Anti-Tank ditches. At least Tanks and tracked APC’s should be immune from the effects of trenches, after all that is why they were invented in the first place (Tanks that is). In my opinion (Epoletov) tanks should not be able to dig in. That is after all why the round (sandbagged) entrenchment exists, isn’t it?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


An increase in the protective characteristics for dug in vehicles (round entrenchment) would also be nice.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The infantry would look better dug-in in the round, as in other versions of the game (SPWAW – I’m fully aware that SPWAW uses a different version of the original, but…).


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The ability to be able to assign orders to units as in other versions of the game (SPWAW etc) - Command Control (disconnected in preferences).


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To modernize op-fire filter, having entered a choice for shooting on aircraft.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Could you please think about assigning the Soviets, perhaps other countries too, an additional ORBAT file as some countries are really starting to fill up. After all there are a lot of various TO&E and weapons that most people would like to see but can’t, as things stand.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To reduce the cost of Self-Propelled ATGM. They are now useless as they are too easy to spot, cost too much, and some are quite incapable of dealing out sufficient damage to opponents.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To increase the cost of transport helicopters with weapons (those only equipped with MGs). Now they seem quite unstoppable, are affordable and they are no less effective than the attack helicopters.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Being able to build bridges during a battle (pontoons, mechanical bridges) would also be a good idea.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To give units like engineers/pioneers the ability to blow up bridges again (now only artillery seems capable of doing).


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To assign as many weapons as possible their real world (original) sounds.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To change the information available to an opponent so that he can tell what a unit’s weapons load out is (M16, AK47 and what have you) but not what sort of a unit it is.


The weapons can be revealed (if you will) as they are used if need be.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To tidy up the display of cargo (Infantry Sections, MG-units etc) in closed transports (helicopters, vehicles, ships etc). As it is it seems a little confused.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To make it impossible for units to be renamed during a battle. People take advantage of this during “Play by e-mail” etc. At the very least some sort of name and shame on the forums would be good. Still prevention is the best way to handle it.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Helicopter movement could benefit from some tweaks too. If the Helo becomes dispersed, as it often does in heavy combat, then some sort of movement restrictions should be placed on it. At certain speeds too similar restrictions should be placed on it. No sharp turns, no turns in place (in the hex it is in) and only an 180o (90o left and right) turn radius. So the helicopter can turn left and right (just about) r carry on forward but can’t carry out some stunning high speed manoeuvre, especially if the crew is supposed to be suppressed. Applying the same movement rules as barges would be a step in the right direction.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To make guided artillery shells.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To reduce the radius of suppression (Z - button) for MGs to 1 hex (now 2 hex).


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To lower the speed of Engineers and Engineering and Mine clearing Tanks so that their work is visible (represented). Less manoeuvrability due to the additional equipment would also be a good idea, if feasible.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


An increase in the number of weapons (4 --> 5,6,...) available to units, if feasible, would also be welcomed by many.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tank and gun crews should not be given the opportunity to use smoke grenades. Rationale being that the last thing you take from a burning vehicle is a smoke grenade.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thermal imaging equipment should either be made more expensive or less efficient. Units with the ability could have an increased cost penalty. The system itself could be recalibrated so it is less accurate or at the very least is subject to a tighter/smaller maximum effective range. Now many players do not wish to play past the eighties. There is an assumption, that in WinSPMBT Thermal Imaging is too effective (gives huge advantage).


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In SPWAW the command units and their subordinates were marked in such a way that no matter how far you were zoomed out you could still identify who belonged to who and who was in-charge. WinSPMBT could benefit from a similar system. The application of tags, with the instruction of indexes C0, C1, C2 would be very convenient for the player saving time by avoiding unnecessary searching, especially when units are dispersed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Op-fire filter could do with some tweaking too. For example lighter reconnaissance aircraft, when deployed, have the habit of soaking up AA fire so that a smart player who knows the exploits will purchase a few recon planes (UAVs etc) then send them in watch them blow up and then later send in his Jets and make merry hell. The ground AA wastes its ammo on the recon planes. One suggestion would be to make sure recon aircraft (which I believe are size zero in-game) can’t be targeted. If they, the recon planes, have to be targeted then it would be better if AA MGs and so on were tasked with such work and not the heavier stuff. Quite frankly I think you should have the option to say yes or no to Op-fire be it on aircraft or on ground units. It would make things a little more manageable. Most of the problems encountered in-game are normally down to the willy-nilly application of Op-fire anyway. You should be given the choice, at least with AA defence.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Marek_Tucan]

Okay, my opinions and comments http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Rather academical in most places as they do concern things that would be very hard, if not impossible to change http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif


Epoletov_SPR said:
The ability to pick which kind of shell is being used when in combat (HE, AP, HEAT etc) would be very much appreciated. Being able to choose which kind of ammo the tank, anti-tank gun etc can fire would avoid less effective rounds being automatically picked (a less powerful AP shell being picked over a more powerful HEAT shell).



Have to say I have no problems with the wy game handles this and it would add too much micromanaging to my liking - but that's just me and no army.



The ability to choose which side (East or west) armies deploy on, perhaps also a North and South option wouldn’t go amiss either. As it stands the Russians (for example) tend to always be placed on the eastern side of the map.



Can be cheated by selecting appropriate countries and then buy stuff under "Allied" option (f.e. when fighting Chinese, Russia started for me on the left side always)



Making the trenches less of a hindrance for vehicles (Vehicles almost always become immobilized when crossing trenches, including tracked ones) would also be a good idea. Either they, the trenches, should be considered as Infantry entrenchments or as Anti-Tank ditches. At least Tanks and tracked APC’s should be immune from the effects of trenches, after all that is why they were invented in the first place (Tanks that is).



I'd say "less prone to sticking" over "immune" for tracked vehicles http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif


In my opinion (Epoletov) tanks should not be able to dig in. That is after all why the round (sandbagged) entrenchment exists, isn’t it?



AFAIK the Dug In status means for tank (or any other vehicle) a Hull Down position (almost no piece of land is so flat you won't be able to hide atleast a bit of tank), the circular entrenchment increases hull down bonus.



Being able to build bridges during a battle (pontoons, mechanical bridges) would also be a good idea.



I think this is out of the game scope - one turn is at best 3 minutes, and building pontoon bridge takes time - the barge carriers are already pushing things a bit http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



To give units like engineers/pioneers the ability to blow up bridges again (now only artillery seems capable of doing).



I'd argue that destroying bridge is no simple task even for engineers that have their time - combat engineers with rapidly-placed charges won't do much. If something is to change re. the bridges I'd say make them less susceptible to even arty fire, requiring multiple hits in the same hex to take the bridge down (after all hex is 50 meters, ordinary bridge won't be so easy to hit and wide bridges would be more able to take damage and remain useable).


To change the information available to an opponent so that he can tell what a unit’s weapons load out is (M16, AK47 and what have you) but not what sort of a unit it is.


The weapons can be revealed (if you will) as they are used if need be.




Yeah, fog of war would be great. And I daresay ain't gonna happen due to coding problems http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif But in PBEM you can simulate it by making agreements with your opponent that you may for example change all foot units to "generic" names (Riflemen for every squad-type unit, MG for any MMG/HMG, LAW/MAW for antitank teams...).



Helicopter movement could benefit from some tweaks too. If the Helo becomes dispersed, as it often does in heavy combat, then some sort of movement restrictions should be placed on it. At certain speeds too similar restrictions should be placed on it. No sharp turns, no turns in place (in the hex it is in) and only an 180o (90o left and right) turn radius. So the helicopter can turn left and right (just about) r carry on forward but can’t carry out some stunning high speed manoeuvre, especially if the crew is supposed to be suppressed. Applying the same movement rules as barges would be a step in the right direction.



I'd say impossible (unfortunately), would require game engine to be able to distinguish anisothropic (ie direction-dependant) behavior of moving objects...



To make guided artillery shells.



Game engine doesn't allow for them. You may create them as Top Attack ATGM's (for HE with HE warheads) and assign them as weapon for specialised FO teams. For use by human player only, no reload internal rules etc.



To reduce the radius of suppression (Z - button) for MGs to 1 hex (now 2 hex).



Already reacted to this point so I'll just repeat that from my view this beaten zone effect is deserved and realistic simulation of suppression effect of HMG fire.



To lower the speed of Engineers and Engineering and Mine clearing Tanks so that their work is visible (represented). Less manoeuvrability due to the additional equipment would also be a good idea, if feasible.



Answer for maneuvrability issues is simple - game doesn't do it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif As for speed, if I'm not mistaken most engineering vehicles have downgraded speed somewhat, and when mineclearing they tend to be working best when stationary.



An increase in the number of weapons (4 --> 5,6,...) available to units, if feasible, would also be welcomed by many.



Would depend on how much mutilation can OOB code take - afaik Don and Andy already mentioned it doesn't offer space for anything fancy.



Tank and gun crews should not be given the opportunity to use smoke grenades. Rationale being that the last thing you take from a burning vehicle is a smoke grenade.



Dunno how in different countries, but in Czechoslovakian/Czech army for example Dana SPH carries even RPG-75's for the crew http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



Thermal imaging equipment should either be made more expensive or less efficient. Units with the ability could have an increased cost penalty. The system itself could be recalibrated so it is less accurate or at the very least is subject to a tighter/smaller maximum effective range. Now many players do not wish to play past the eighties. There is an assumption, that in WinSPMBT Thermal Imaging is too effective (gives huge advantage).



Here I'd agree that shorter-ranged TI sights for say infantry would be good, however, the 40 value is set into stone somewhere in the game engine AFAIK.



In SPWAW the command units and their subordinates were marked in such a way that no matter how far you were zoomed out you could still identify who belonged to who and who was in-charge. WinSPMBT could benefit from a similar system. The application of tags, with the instruction of indexes C0, C1, C2 would be very convenient for the player saving time by avoiding unnecessary searching, especially when units are dispersed.



Actually I like the current system (ie no highlighting) as it enhances fog of war effects and adds to chaos on battlefield in tense battles...

[Epoletov_SPR]

Epoletov_SPR said:
The ability to pick which kind of shell is being used when in combat (HE, AP, HEAT etc) would be very much appreciated. Being able to choose which kind of ammo the tank, anti-tank gun etc can fire would avoid less effective rounds being automatically picked (a less powerful AP shell being picked over a more powerful HEAT shell).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Have to say I have no problems with the wy game handles this and it would add too much micromanaging to my liking - but that's just me and no army.



Each player himself chooses for itself that is necessary for it for a victory.
OP-filtr many players do not use.
But with op-filtr chances of a victory increase, only it is not necessary to be lazy it to use.

Often the tank shoots AP - a shell there where would be better HEAT a shell.
Is insulting to receive then in the answer a fatal shot.



In my opinion (Epoletov) tanks should not be able to dig in. That is after all why the round (sandbagged) entrenchment exists, isn’t it?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AFAIK the Dug In status means for tank (or any other vehicle) a Hull Down position (almost no piece of land is so flat you won't be able to hide atleast a bit of tank), the circular entrenchment increases hull down bonus.




It is too easy to get a shell in this tank, though it and hidden in round a trench.
Protection vechicle in such a trench should be better.



Being able to build bridges during a battle (pontoons, mechanical bridges) would also be a good idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this is out of the game scope - one turn is at best 3 minutes, and building pontoon bridge takes time - the barge carriers are already pushing things a bit



Is AVLB, TMM (USSR) which quickly do the bridge through Stream.




To give units like engineers/pioneers the ability to blow up bridges again (now only artillery seems capable of doing).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'd argue that destroying bridge is no simple task even for engineers that have their time - combat engineers with rapidly-placed charges won't do much. If something is to change re. the bridges I'd say make them less susceptible to even arty fire, requiring multiple hits in the same hex to take the bridge down (after all hex is 50 meters, ordinary bridge won't be so easy to hit and wide bridges would be more able to take damage and remain useable).





Even tanks cannot destroy the wooden bridge (in WinSPMBT).
Unfortunately.


Tank and gun crews should not be given the opportunity to use smoke grenades. Rationale being that the last thing you take from a burning vehicle is a smoke grenade.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dunno how in different countries, but in Czechoslovakian/Czech army for example Dana SPH carries even RPG-75's for the crew



You burn down in the tank, pulling out this equipment.

In WinSPMBT 3.5 it is frequent Crew use for creation of a smoke screen to hide other (valuable) armies.
In fact Crew cost 0 poitns.

[narwan]

Some answers and opinions of my own;



Epoletov_SPR said:

The ability to pick which kind of shell is being used when in combat (HE, AP, HEAT etc) would be very much appreciated. Being able to choose which kind of ammo the tank, anti-tank gun etc can fire would avoid less effective rounds being automatically picked (a less powerful AP shell being picked over a more powerful HEAT shell).



Besides the coding problems of introducing this, I don't agree. I would make for a worse game. Introducing this option would give the player micro-control over what happens in a specific unit itself. Ammo picking should be left to the 'crew' and governed by unit experience and crew skills, not player choice. Picking the wrong ammo and wasting rounds is a realistic part of combat and should stay.



Epoletov_SPR said:
The infantry would look better dug-in in the round, as in other versions of the game (SPWAW – I’m fully aware that SPWAW uses a different version of the original, but…).



If you mean as opposed to foxholes I don't agree on this one either. Infnatry looks much better in the foxholes than in the round entrenchments.



Epoletov_SPR said:
To modernize op-fire filter, having entered a choice for shooting on aircraft.



There already is a choice in the OP filter screen for shooting at aircraft or not so what is it you're asking for here?


Epoletov_SPR said:
To increase the cost of transport helicopters with weapons (those only equipped with MGs). Now they seem quite unstoppable, are affordable and they are no less effective than the attack helicopters.



Uhhh, are you playing the same game as I am? These transports drop as flies in modern games; I find them barely cost effective as they are. If you're referring to environments with very little AA these sort of craft should be powerful; it's what they're designed for. The problem there isn't the cost of the craft but the lack of the appropriate gear on the other side.



Epoletov_SPR said:
To make it impossible for units to be renamed during a battle. People take advantage of this during “Play by e-mail” etc. At the very least some sort of name and shame on the forums would be good. Still prevention is the best way to handle it.



Setting rules before the game helps to some degree as would not playing those people again. They'll soon run out of opponents to play! Remember they can't change the name of the weapon system they're firing with (top screen) so that's some help.
Not being able to change unit names in a game might create some new problems (scenario design, editing scenario's for example) so I'm not sure if this would be a good idea even if possible.


Epoletov_SPR said:
Helicopter movement could benefit from some tweaks too. If the Helo becomes dispersed, as it often does in heavy combat, then some sort of movement restrictions should be placed on it. At certain speeds too similar restrictions should be placed on it. No sharp turns, no turns in place (in the hex it is in) and only an 180o (90o left and right) turn radius. So the helicopter can turn left and right (just about) r carry on forward but can’t carry out some stunning high speed manoeuvre, especially if the crew is supposed to be suppressed. Applying the same movement rules as barges would be a step in the right direction.



This has been mentioned int he past and the answer to date has always been that it's a game for GROUND combat. It was never meant nor is able to model aircraft as realisticly as it does ground units. The work involved in changing that would effectively mean writing a new game. Which would probably be easier to.


Epoletov_SPR said:
To make guided artillery shells.



Which means what? Even more accuracy to artillery fire?


Epoletov_SPR said:
To reduce the radius of suppression (Z - button) for MGs to 1 hex (now 2 hex).



This I absolutely disagree with. This 2-range Z-fire is one of the very best features in the game. And realistic.


Epoletov_SPR said:
An increase in the number of weapons (4 --> 5,6,...) available to units, if feasible, would also be welcomed by many.



Not feasible unfortunately.



Epoletov_SPR said:
Thermal imaging equipment should either be made more expensive or less efficient. Units with the ability could have an increased cost penalty. The system itself could be recalibrated so it is less accurate or at the very least is subject to a tighter/smaller maximum effective range. Now many players do not wish to play past the eighties. There is an assumption, that in WinSPMBT Thermal Imaging is too effective (gives huge advantage).



There is a huge cost increase for TI units. And it is HUGE. And TI is very effective in real life so why shouldn't it be in the game? The vision range in the game is even less than it is in reality.
As to not wanting to play beyond the 80's by some players, that's not because of the game but because modern day combat in real life is so fast and accurate as to be not much fun.
So with regards to TI I'd say: don't blame the messenger (the game) for the message that TI is the superior system on the field in the real world.
But then again, I think this discussion was done months ago.


Epoletov_SPR said:
The Op-fire filter could do with some tweaking too. For example lighter reconnaissance aircraft, when deployed, have the habit of soaking up AA fire so that a smart player who knows the exploits will purchase a few recon planes (UAVs etc) then send them in watch them blow up and then later send in his Jets and make merry hell. The ground AA wastes its ammo on the recon planes. One suggestion would be to make sure recon aircraft (which I believe are size zero in-game) can’t be targeted. If they, the recon planes, have to be targeted then it would be better if AA MGs and so on were tasked with such work and not the heavier stuff. Quite frankly I think you should have the option to say yes or no to Op-fire be it on aircraft or on ground units. It would make things a little more manageable. Most of the problems encountered in-game are normally down to the willy-nilly application of Op-fire anyway. You should be given the choice, at least with AA defence.




That's not players exploiting the game, that's players using real world tactics to feel out the air defense present.
There's not going to be a choice on OP fire in this game. Basically for the same reason I mentioned in my first answer in this post. It's a crew choice, not a player choice.

[DRG]

FYI two points we have already dealt with in the code are:

1} the immobilizations of tank in trenches has been reduced IF the unit does not attempt to cross them at full speed. Stopping first then crossing will be the best way to deal with these

and

2) Crews were getting too much smoke. This had never been brought up before but some crews could be carrying up to 5 smoke grenades. Andy and I discussed various options and decided that one per crew is a satisfactoy compromise.


Many points made either we don't agree with ( like the TI being undervalued or choosing shell type or the MG 2-hex Z-fire beaten area) or are impossible to code without destroying existing save games and scenarios ( increased weapons slots ) or just simply don't understand ( numbering the later scenarios when the sceanrio slots are automatically numbered now ) but we do encourage everyone to discuss these points.

Don

[RecruitMonty]

Bridges should be easier to destroy. The wooden bridge especially. Tanks with 75mm plus guns firing on some rickety wooden structure with HE rounds should be able to make nice holes in the wooden houses too. I mean they aren't bunkers are they.

Also the way damage to the map from mortars etc (lighter artillery) is frankly laughable. In reality anything of 60mm would leave a mark on the ground. I always find this so frustrating, there you are plastering an area with fire and the only evidence that you have done so is a bit of smoke. I think the cut off point should be lowered so that weapons with smaller warhead sizes can do more damage to the map. It's not just a question of aesthetics, its more realistic. In my opinion.

[RecruitMonty]

"That's not players exploiting the game, that's players using real world tactics to feel out the air defense present.
There's not going to be a choice on OP fire in this game. Basically for the same reason I mentioned in my first answer in this post. It's a crew choice, not a player choice."

Not if they know that the stupid AA units will open up with everything they have on a piddly little recon plane.

[RecruitMonty]

I still think more sound work needs to be done. One of the most attractive features of a game like this are the weapon sounds, the more realistic and varied the better.

[DRG]

RecruitMonty said:
Bridges should be easier to destroy. The wooden bridge especially. Tanks with 75mm plus guns firing on some rickety wooden structure with HE rounds should be able to make nice holes in the wooden houses too. I mean they aren't bunkers are they.




**********Look, we allow 70 ton tanks to cross wooden bridges so there's the "rickety wooden structure" argument out the window. I could easily change the code to elliminate wooden bridges altogether and only place stone/steel ones ( my preference for the "Post WW2" world of MBT )but we left them in AND we ensured that an engineer squad with a satchel charge cannot take wooden or stone/steel bridges with one go as the game used to allow. It's a game design decision we made some time ago.



RecruitMonty said:
Also the way damage to the map from mortars etc (lighter artillery) is frankly laughable. In reality anything of 60mm would leave a mark on the ground. I always find this so frustrating, there you are plastering an area with fire and the only evidence that you have done so is a bit of smoke. I think the cut off point should be lowered so that weapons with smaller warhead sizes can do more damage to the map. It's not just a question of aesthetics, its more realistic. In my opinion.



Shellholes give cover and therefore , shells that make shellholes that give cover are shown in the game. 60mm mortars do NOT dig holes deep enough to give cover and therefore are not shown on the map when they land

Don

[DRG]

RecruitMonty said:
I still think more sound work needs to be done. One of the most attractive features of a game like this are the weapon sounds, the more realistic and varied the better.



You may be right, however, both Andy and I play the game with the sound off so what does that tell you about sound as a priority for us? Even when I do play with the sound on it's turned on low as "background ambiance". Would you spend hundreds of hours working on something you'll never use? There are ample sound slots still open in the sounds.ini and anyone so inclined could easily create new sounds, add them to the game and the OOB's but to date no one has bothered which I think says a lot about the general enthusiasm for the idea.

We've both being doing this for a long time. It'll be ten years for me come January 2008. We are currently upgrading SPMBT and then SPWW2 but we are at the stage that we are only devoting valuable time to things we feel strongly about and right now sounds and the upgrading of all the OOB's to accommodate those sounds are not on the list

Don

[Marek_Tucan]

RecruitMonty said:
Bridges should be easier to destroy. The wooden bridge especially. Tanks with 75mm plus guns firing on some rickety wooden structure with HE rounds should be able to make nice holes in the wooden houses too. I mean they aren't bunkers are they.



For my own conscience I don't take Wooden bridges as Wooden, but as Secondary or pontoon bridges (and even at that, rare due to their fragility) - mind you, each of these bridges will take Leopard - one hell of wooden structure that isn't going to be blown easily with random hits. Plus there's that argument that few bridges are 50 meters wide so that any shell that hits the hex can hit them and damage the enough to bring them down. So I'd say bridges are too fragile as they stand(then again, it's a long-time used value so I don't think it needs change, if I need a survivable bridge I can always build a land bridge).



Also the way damage to the map from mortars etc (lighter artillery) is frankly laughable. In reality anything of 60mm would leave a mark on the ground. I always find this so frustrating, there you are plastering an area with fire and the only evidence that you have done so is a bit of smoke. I think the cut off point should be lowered so that weapons with smaller warhead sizes can do more damage to the map. It's not just a question of aesthetics, its more realistic. In my opinion.



Would make sense if the damae was just cosmetical, but it does influence terrain properties and 60mm or 81mm mortar isn't going to destroy road or dig a crater wide enough for you to hide into http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif So I'd say the WH effects are good as they are now...

[Epoletov_SPR]

Epoletov_SPR said:
The infantry would look better dug-in in the round, as in other versions of the game (SPWAW – I’m fully aware that SPWAW uses a different version of the original, but…).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Narwan said:

If you mean as opposed to foxholes I don't agree on this one either. Infnatry looks much better in the foxholes than in the round entrenchments.




Not so.
The infantry should be able to dig entrenchments during fight (so in WinSPWaW), 2-3 Turns, depending on experience the soldier).


Epoletov_SPR said:
To modernize op-fire filter, having entered a choice for shooting on aircraft.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Narwan said:

There already is a choice in the OP filter screen for shooting at aircraft or not so what is it you're asking for here?



Look the best translation made Recruit Monty (post #561316).

===>>> The Op-fire filter could do with some tweaking too. For example lighter reconnaissance aircraft, when deployed, have the habit of soaking up AA fire so that a smart player who knows the exploits will purchase a few recon planes (UAVs etc) then send them in watch them blow up and then later send in his Jets and make merry hell. The ground AA wastes its ammo on the recon planes. One suggestion would be to make sure recon aircraft (which I believe are size zero in-game) can’t be targeted. If they, the recon planes, have to be targeted then it would be better if AA MGs and so on were tasked with such work and not the heavier stuff. Quite frankly I think you should have the option to say yes or no to Op-fire be it on aircraft or on ground units. It would make things a little more manageable. Most of the problems encountered in-game are normally down to the willy-nilly application of Op-fire anyway. You should be given the choice, at least with AA defence.


Epoletov_SPR said:
To increase the cost of transport helicopters with weapons (those only equipped with MGs). Now they seem quite unstoppable, are affordable and they are no less effective than the attack helicopters.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Narvan said:

Uhhh, are you playing the same game as I am? These transports drop as flies in modern games; I find them barely cost effective as they are. If you're referring to environments with very little AA these sort of craft should be powerful; it's what they're designed for. The problem there isn't the cost of the craft but the lack of the appropriate gear on the other side.




You probably did not meet their massed and skilful use in fight. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

They are very cheap for the abilities.
Intel, destruction no-armored and light-armored targets.
And also for destruction of enemy helicopters (from distance 1 hex for example).
And at last in the end of a strike to land a courageous landing!
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

And your air defence will not prevent, for this purpose is unvaluable no-armed helicopters and effective (absorb air defence) UAV. /threads/images/Graemlins/Cold.gif


It is necessary to increase cost Armed transport helicopters.



Epoletov_SPR said:
To reduce the radius of suppression (Z - button) for MGs to 1 hex (now 2 hex).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Narwan said:

This I absolutely disagree with. This 2-range Z-fire is one of the very best features in the game. And realistic



All right infantry pinned.

But when armored vechicles badly are at war after their bombardment from machine guns, it is strange.

It is necessary to relieve armored vechicles from pinned fire MG-unit, etc.

Even Crew with Pistol can buttoned Tank.


Epoletov_SPR said:
The Op-fire filter could do with some tweaking too. For example lighter reconnaissance aircraft, when deployed, have the habit of soaking up AA fire so that a smart player who knows the exploits will purchase a few recon planes (UAVs etc) then send them in watch them blow up and then later send in his Jets and make merry hell. The ground AA wastes its ammo on the recon planes. One suggestion would be to make sure recon aircraft (which I believe are size zero in-game) can’t be targeted. If they, the recon planes, have to be targeted then it would be better if AA MGs and so on were tasked with such work and not the heavier stuff. Quite frankly I think you should have the option to say yes or no to Op-fire be it on aircraft or on ground units. It would make things a little more manageable. Most of the problems encountered in-game are normally down to the willy-nilly application of Op-fire anyway. You should be given the choice, at least with AA defence.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Narwan said:

That's not players exploiting the game, that's players using real world tactics to feel out the air defense present.
There's not going to be a choice on OP fire in this game. Basically for the same reason I mentioned in my first answer in this post. It's a crew choice, not a player choice



Arrives UAV and stupid air defence shoots on it though it is clear that not effectively.

What such real world tactic, it is lack WinSPMBT 3.5.

What bad to order to air defence to shoot on important, valuable aircraft?
Ambush in air defence one of the basic military cunnings of modern war.
Wait valuable target.
For example so was in Vietnam (B-52 down, passing fighters).




Narwan said:

There is a huge cost increase for TI units. And it is HUGE. And TI is very effective in real life so why shouldn't it be in the game? The vision range in the game is even less than it is in reality.
As to not wanting to play beyond the 80's by some players, that's not because of the game but because modern day combat in real life is so fast and accurate as to be not much fun.
So with regards to TI I'd say: don't blame the messenger (the game) for the message that TI is the superior system on the field in the real world.
But then again, I think this discussion was done months ago.



There are many factors reducing efficiency TI in a reality.
Weather for example (a rain, a heat, etc.) - reduces ability to find out target.

In WinSPMBT 3.5 TI gives too big superiority.

Now cost "TI" it is underestimated in comparison with efficiency.

[narwan]

Epoletov_SPR said:

Not so.
The infantry should be able to dig entrenchments during fight (so in WinSPWaW), 2-3 Turns, depending on experience the soldier).




No, that's a big error in SPWaW we really don't want to repeat in these games. It takes a lot of time for soldiers to dig an entrenchment or foxholes that give significant protection and allow them to fight effectively. It takes far longer than those 5 to 10 minutes you mention (try an hour or more at least). Which takes it out of the scope of the game length for these tactical games. Bad idea.




Epoletov_SPR said:
You probably did not meet their massed and skilful use in fight. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

They are very cheap for the abilities.
Intel, destruction no-armored and light-armored targets.
And also for destruction of enemy helicopters (from distance 1 hex for example).
And at last in the end of a strike to land a courageous landing!
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

And your air defence will not prevent, for this purpose is unvaluable no-armed helicopters and effective (absorb air defence) UAV. /threads/images/Graemlins/Cold.gif


It is necessary to increase cost Armed transport helicopters.




I don't think it's necessary. IMO you're making the mistake of taking a single combat system in a single specific set of circumstances and then complaining the system's not balanced. In another set of circumstances that same system seems pityfully weak. So if I do have a host of aa guns in my game wiping these craft from the skies that doesn't mean they are too expensive and need a cut in price (although I stick to my opinion they are barely cost-effective).

Like everything it comes down to the balance of forces. If you buy lot's of infantry without AT weapons and BTR60's you can hardly complain armor is too expensive because it's so hard to destroy the enemy tanks.
Most transports can be damaged destroyed even by small arms and damaged units will fly off the map.
And as to their effectiveness, they are in RL too (under the right set of circumstances). The Americans showed in Vietnam just how strong a helicopter born infantry force can be in a light AA environment.



Epoletov_SPR said:
All right infantry pinned.

But when armored vechicles badly are at war after their bombardment from machine guns, it is strange.

It is necessary to relieve armored vechicles from pinned fire MG-unit, etc.

Even Crew with Pistol can buttoned Tank.




I'm not dure if you understand the disticntion between ready and buttoned for AFV's. Ready means the crew has hatches open and is sticking their heads out for the best round view. When buttoned they close down those hatches and have to use whatever visibility their AFV allows. No matter what their performance will drop as they will have a reduced view of their surroundings.
When faced with small arms fire, even from pistols, crew will have a tendency to get under armor and close the hatches. But don't forget that most times such a pistol shot will not cause a AFV to button down so they'll be able to use all MG's to fire back.
When faced with a barrage of mmg area fire you bet that AFV cress will pull down their heads (and hence be 'buttoned'). Heavy mg fire (and even small arms fire) is a real life tactic to reduce the effectiveness of AFV. It can even drive them off in RL (that happens when a AFV crew is buttoned and no longer feels secure because they can't see everything around them anymore; in fear of an ambush they may pull out). So why shouldn't the game have this too?


Epoletov_SPR said:
Arrives UAV and stupid air defence shoots on it though it is clear that not effectively.

What such real world tactic, it is lack WinSPMBT 3.5.

What bad to order to air defence to shoot on important, valuable aircraft?
Ambush in air defence one of the basic military cunnings of modern war.
Wait valuable target.
For example so was in Vietnam (B-52 down, passing fighters).




There's a difference between ambushing strategic bombers and ignoring tactical craft. What you're saying is "let's ignore these little craft who are maping out all our forces present so the enemy knows exactly where to aim their cluster ammo". UAV 's are a PRIME target for antiaircraft units, as are other scout aircraft like scout helicopters and light planes. Modern combat is all about C3I and the speed with which you can react. UAV's give about the fastest response possible (as they have a direct link to a base and there is no 'pilot' as intermediate who has to communicate his findings) to the enemy so these are very important targets to shoot down.
Ignoring scout craft would lead to far, far larger problems to the game than what you feel is present now.



Epoletov_SPR said:
There are many factors reducing efficiency TI in a reality.
Weather for example (a rain, a heat, etc.) - reduces ability to find out target.

In WinSPMBT 3.5 TI gives too big superiority.

Now cost "TI" it is underestimated in comparison with efficiency.




As I said, this debate was done months ago. TI is in fact much more capable in many respects than it is depicted in the game now. So it averages out.

And I'll repeat from before, TI can be blocked in the game, it's not going to see through everything all of the time.

[Marek_Tucan]

Just to add to the helo section, it's about the same as APC. Primary mission of transport helo/APC (even if armed) is to carry grunts to battle and their armament is for self-defence or support of their dismounts.
Now of course if you want you can get them into harm's way and use then for scouting or as mini-tanks (or mini-gunships) but then one hidden infantry squad with good nerves can at worst shoot them down, at best it can shoo them away after damaging them. Plus, contrary to APC's that tend to be smaller than tanks, transport helos tend to be bigger than gunships, so are easier to hit.
heavily armed transport helos (Blackhawks with Hellfires, Ka-29TB...) tend to be fragile and expensive, just as IFV's are, so there's again that balance - heavier weapons make the vehicle more powerful, but OTOH distract from the primary mission and usually have cargo capacity penalties. And in threat-rich environment (plenty AAA or AT weapons) they both tend to die quickly if used carelessly.

[thatguy96]

RecruitMonty said:
Tanks with 75mm plus guns firing on some rickety wooden structure with HE rounds should be able to make nice holes in the wooden houses too. I mean they aren't bunkers are they.


I know this is only one source, but after reading Harry Yeide's "The Tank Killers" about WWII TDs, it seems clear that its really down the specific HE round used. There are anecdotes of TDs at close range having to fire multiple HE rounds just to make a hole big enough in a gutted stone house wall to use the structure as an improvised vehicle emplacement. It might be realistic to assume the shot is simply passing through without hitting anything hard enough to detonate it.

Also, a wooden house may appear rickety and really be so, but if you're not hitting load bearing structures and not hitting it with a round big enough to not really require good shot placement, it could likely take a surprising amount of damage.

Not entirely sure how true either of these points may be, but its something to chew on.


DRG said:
**********Look, we allow 70 ton tanks to cross wooden bridges so there's the "rickety wooden structure" argument out the window. I could easily change the code to elliminate wooden bridges altogether and only place stone/steel ones ( my preference for the "Post WW2" world of MBT )but we left them in AND we ensured that an engineer squad with a satchel charge cannot take wooden or stone/steel bridges with one go as the game used to allow. It's a game design decision we made some time ago.



Is there a way to change this? Not allow vehicles with sizes or weight over a certain number on terrain types? I understand you could do it by class, but I also understand that would be a prohibitive amount of work to make sure all the OOBs have the heavy tanks in the right class.

I only say this because the bridges not meant for 70 ton MBTs were a huge issue in places like Bosnia.

[Marek_Tucan]

thatguy96 said:
I know this is only one source, but after reading Harry Yeide's "The Tank Killers" about WWII TDs, it seems clear that its really down the specific HE round used. There are anecdotes of TDs at close range having to fire multiple HE rounds just to make a hole big enough in a gutted stone house wall to use the structure as an improvised vehicle emplacement. It might be realistic to assume the shot is simply passing through without hitting anything hard enough to detonate it.



Possible IMO, members of Cpat. Mackay's group from Arnhem specifically described how they were assaulted by Tiger II's - the tank was apparently firing Panzergranate only as the shells went through the entire building, leaving large holes in their path but not exploding.

[PlasmaKrab]

Bridges should be easier to destroy. The wooden bridge especially. Tanks with 75mm plus guns firing on some rickety wooden structure with HE rounds should be able to make nice holes in the wooden houses too. I mean they aren't bunkers are they.

Got to agree with everyone on this one. Even wooden bridges aren't supposed to be rickety (it would be fun if they could be, but hey) since they can carry any vehicle.
Regarding structure hexes, bear in mind that each hex is about 50m diameter, so blowing a "hole" through a hex or bringing down the whole block will require something more than a few direct-fire HE shells.

[RecruitMonty]

Then it would be better to do what "thatguy96" suggested with tanks and bridges. But the houses, come on. By 1946 I think most of the tank guns available to the allies (Sovs. incl.) could do serious damage even to stone houses. The High-end German stuff certainly could.

As for sounds, I found a load, Plasma seems to have also found a load, and no one ever asked for them. That's the trouble, no one ever asks. I have done in the past and all I got was... nevermind. Perhaps if someone would ask for them then maybe the changes, in that department, might begin taking shape.

Regarding craters etc, a cosmetic adjustment was what I was driving at. Still does not explain why houses remain undamaged by lighter artillery though, well it does (limit of the game code - no ground damage = no house damage) but still surely a way around this can be found. Buildings could benefit from a certain amount of visible damage from receiving lighter artillery damage. IRL if a house gets hit by a 60mm mortar round you need more than just a lick of paint to fix the damage.

[Marek_Tucan]

RecruitMonty said:
Then it would be better to do what "thatguy96" suggested with tanks and bridges. But the houses, come on. By 1946 I think most of the tank guns available to the allies (Sovs. incl.) could do serious damage even to stone houses. The High-end German stuff certainly could.



There were still houses standing in Stalingrad (though without roofs etc.) by 6th Army's capitulation...
And I doubt any tank gun would have such destructive effects as direct-fire sIG-33. With house demolitions, muzzle velocity and penetration is almost immaterial to you, amount of explosives is important. And even sIG-33 would have problems with large concrete/stone/thick-walled brick buildings, definitely it won't bring them down with one or two shots (as it would in SP) - and definitely not with indirect fire as it would have trouble hitting the building - as it is now the building suffers damage when anywhere in the 50-meter-wide circle including the building drops shell of required size. So I'd say buildings are (as with bridges) more fragile than they "should" be... I say leave them or reinforce them.

[RecruitMonty]

One, Stalingrad was 1942-43; two, I never said bring it down I just said damage it, you know make a nice whole in it and three what about the post WWII era units. You know the ones in SPMBT.

[Marek_Tucan]

Hardly much change from 1942-1943 regarding building demolitions with guns http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

100mm HE is weaker than 15cm, AP will pass through, HEAT will make big bang but very limited structural damage. 90mm, ditto. 105mm is a tad better with HEP rounds, the same for 120mm L11 and derivatives. However say 120mm HEAT is again significantly weaker against structures more stable than a wooden shack.

The real winner would be 165mm gun from CEV or 160mm or 240mm mortar but even there I'd doubt its abilities to bring down most buildings that I'd put into "stone building" section of SP maps with one or two shots. Oh, and then there's thermobarics for sure - they do put out big pressure, but even with that video of RPO Shmel blowing off the upper half of a small brick house I'd like to see the results of warhead impacting the target, not of warhead being placed inside http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Other than that, I don't see many advancements since 1942-1943 in this field. Artillery concentrated rather on range and accuracy, its HE loads remaining on the same level as WWII (generally), improvements re. lethality were aimed at ICM and better frag patterns. Mortars generally the same. Tank guns fixed on penetration mostly, there the leaps qere great, but at the expense of HE rounds usually.

There is plethora of means designed to get inside a building - various breaching rounds etc. - but they do leave the building standing.

Again, it's the same as "stone" and "wooden" bridge - forget about "stones" and "wood" and view the buildings as "heavy" and "light" - in my Petrzalka map, I am using stone buildings primarily for old Bratislava downtown with large stone or heavy brick buildings and for newe ceoncrete block of flats, wooden buildings do represent ordinary family houses and large industrial halls, usually with light construction (getting the lighter the newer they are).

[PlasmaKrab]

And while the amount of explosives carried by arty and tank shells hasn't improved much since 1945, the durability of the building has. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
Look at pictures of Sarajevo or Grozny for light (?) and wholesale destruction of modern buildings.

[RecruitMonty]

Wha? They build buildings out of breeze blocks these days and American houses are practically made out of paper. Durability my eye.

[RecruitMonty]

I still think it would be better if some damage was visible. The pictures of Grozny and Kabul don't really present a picture of limited destruction. I'd say those cities were pretty screwed, wouldn't you? Gutted is the word I'd use to describe those buildings, not lightly damaged. I never said they needed to collapse just that they needed to register hits and disply their effects.

[Marek_Tucan]

RecruitMonty said:
I still think it would be better if some damage was visible. The pictures of Grozny and Kabul don't really present a picture of limited destruction. I'd say those cities were pretty screwed, wouldn't you? Gutted is the word I'd use to describe those buildings, not lightly damaged. I never said they needed to collapse just that they needed to register hits and disply their effects.



But after much prolonged shelling than your hour-and-half game http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Heck, the siege of Sarajevo took years. The battle for Grozny took also long time and with use of heaviest weapons available. And skirmishes and regular battles in Kabul took roughly seven years with various intensity - from Commie withdhrawal to Taliban rise to power...

As for modern buildings, it's true walls are usually weaker - but in such cases they aren't structural elements and the structurals are sturdy and harder to hit due to smaller dimensions...and for light-construction buildings you might use Wooden building class, leaving Stone buildings to represent stone/dense brick/concrete buildings. As for these, look at say Pentagon vs. 757 (or Empire State vs. B-25)...

[Epoletov_SPR]

That that is now created in WinSPMBT 3.5 with aircraft it is the disorder.
It is necessary to enable to operate air defence (to not strengthen air defence) in reflection of attacks of aircraft.

It is required improved OP-filtr.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And still I think it is necessary to reduce fear (buttoned) at tankmen from bombardment by a small arms.

[Marcello]

DRG said:
**********Look, we allow 70 ton tanks to cross wooden bridges so there's the "rickety wooden structure" argument out the window. I could easily change the code to elliminate wooden bridges altogether and only place stone/steel ones ( my preference for the "Post WW2" world of MBT )but we left them in AND we ensured that an engineer squad with a satchel charge cannot take wooden or stone/steel bridges with one go as the game used to allow.



What about changing the "rickety wooden bridge" graphic to something else, like a pontoon bridge?
Wooden bridges (except dedicated gangways for pedestrians/cyclists)are relatively rare these days, at least in the parts of europe I traveled. And sure as hell none of them could support 50 tons MBTs. On the other hand I ran into a few pontoon bridges and at least the military grade ones could support tanks.

[Marek_Tucan]

Marcello said:
What about changing the "rickety wooden bridge" graphic to something else, like a pontoon bridge?
Wooden bridges (except dedicated gangways for pedestrians/cyclists)are relatively rare these days, at least in the parts of europe I traveled. And sure as hell none of them could support 50 tons MBTs. On the other hand I ran into a few pontoon bridges and at least the military grade ones could support tanks.



Or change the wooden bridges and dirt roads to "secondary" (bridges and roads)?

[Marcello]

Marek_Tucan said:
Or change the wooden bridges and dirt roads to "secondary" (bridges and roads)?



I don't get what you mean by "secondary". Personally I think that the current "dirt road" is fine: when I see it I think about unpaved but prepared roads, like gravel roads. For something even more basic, like simple vehicle trails, you can use bare earth; I have used this tecnique in one of my maps I posted here. The only objectionable thing is the wooden bridge, for the reasons already discussed. The pontoon bridge would be one solution, as it could also be useful to represent military bridges. Although thinkng about it it would have to be drawn is such a way that at least for single hex crossings it could pass itself off for a conventional bridge. This to represent all those small bridges crossing irrigation ditches on agricultural roads for which pontoon bridges would be inappropriate.

[Marek_Tucan]

I mean "secondary" as "not main" - IE say local roads etc. At least here many paved roads don't deserve to have "paved" status in SP as well http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Large holes etc. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[PlasmaKrab]

What would have been interesting (but for this one I'm pretty sure it's a pipe dream) is an inputable value of, say, "road width".
After all a hex is still around 50m, so there's no way of telling if that road that runs in the middle of it is 5 or 30m wide. I think I'm not the only one to have run into the problem of stacking several "paved roads" to figure highways, while a real highway is generally under 50m wide.
IMHO the ideal solution would have been to set a "lane number" value or something similar when laying down a road, which in turn changes the number of vehicles that can be stacked in one road hex, the max load the road can take, and how fast damage hampers circulation.
Not sure there's any interest in it, but pretty sure it isn't doable.

[DRG]

Marcello said:

Marek_Tucan said:
Or change the wooden bridges and dirt roads to "secondary" (bridges and roads)?



I don't get what you mean by "secondary". Personally I think that the current "dirt road" is fine:




Neither of you two guys have been paying attention to the game. There hasn't been a "dirt" road in WinSPMBT since it was released. It's been "secondary" road for years and that covers any non paved road. It's still shows the "dirt" road graphic for ease of showing the difference between them and paved roads.

Don

[Marek_Tucan]

DRG said:
Neither of you two guys have been paying attention to the game. There hasn't been a "dirt" road in WinSPMBT since it was released. It's been "secondary" road for years and that covers any non paved road. It's still shows the "dirt" road graphic for ease of showing the difference between them and paved roads.

Don



I admit I didn't care for the official game designation for some time as I used these structures in this sense from the beginning of my SP mapping (that is since old SP2) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Marcello]

The debate was about the graphics, not game mechanics.
Therefore "dirt road" was between quotation marks, because it looks like a dirt road even if does not perform that purpose. Speaking of which as I said I think that the current one is fine.
I suppose that you could change it to something more greyish, to represent the most common gravel roads and the very run down "paved" roads Plasmakrab was speaking about. But that would not be my first concern.

[Marcello]

Personally if there is a terrain that I missed that was some sort of sand berms that could be laid like bocage hedgerows. That would be very useful for iraqi maps.
Next a SPWAW style wall.
I also used to miss some sort of concrete like terrain that could be used as pavement above the zero level, as well as for structures like dams and such. However I found out that grey sand was a decent enough surrogate.

[RecruitMonty]

Walls, I really miss walls. It's murder trying to find a decent surrogate for them. So I concur. Sand berms would be a neat addition too. Not too difficult to simulate though, are they?

[Marcello]

"Sand berms would be a neat addition too. Not too difficult to simulate though, are they?"

You can simulate them by using elevation of course. Thing is, most engineering berms aren't 50 meters wide. Plus some properties would be lacking.

Think to things like these.

http://www.thewideawakecafe.com/wp-content/uploads/feat07.jpe

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/2686428.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF19 390335F8FA9CA92A6D87FFA22637557F09930FDCFC4C15FBB

[PlasmaKrab]

As Marcello said, you can simulate large sand berms and similar by using terrain elevation. I generally go for this for fortified bases and the like. Real, urban-terrain walls are much harder to come by, as well as fences as a minor note. Ever tried to make a map of downtown Berlin pre-reunification? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
Looks like you are mostly talking about lower human-scale berms here, right? Like ones used for low-level fortifications, e.g. around dug-in tanks?
If we consider infantry entrenchments, the game detail level is low enough you can assume that berms are implied in trenches and infantry caches, and that e.g. rough terrain is good enough for the rest.
Back to the point, the one place where I'd gladly see berms is indeed around buried tanks. Right now they get the same sandbag circle as crewed weapons, which I can understand from a game mechanics perspective, but if at all possible, I think some within-hex sand berms like these (http://maps.google.fr/maps?f=q&hl=fr&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=1820+ Montreux-Territet&sll=46.709736,6.679688&sspn=6.810572,14.9 41406&ie=UTF8&ll=30.838481,34.437407&spn=0.004164, 0.007296&t=h&z=17&om=1) for dug-in vehicles would be nice eye candy. Replace sand with earth and you have the summer variant.

For the smaller stuff, I don't think you can expect that level of detail in 50m hexes, and the larger stuff (aircraft shelters and base defenses) can be dealt with using elevation.

[Marcello]

"Looks like you are mostly talking about lower human-scale berms here, right? Like ones used for low-level fortifications, e.g. around dug-in tanks?"

Mostly about the zillion of berms which are built in Iraq.
These do not typically include trenches and are used in a variety of places such as the national borders, to enclose coalition bases etc. Rough terrain does not block LOS nowhere nearly enough to be used in their place, they are much smaller than 50m and I guess they would offer some cover as defensive positions if needs be. I can do with elevation but as it has been said they would be a nice addition.

EDIT

They are also used as obstacles for vehicles (think car bombs but not only).Elevation does not stop 2WD vehicles in the game.

[PlasmaKrab]

While we're nagging about terrain and talking about eye candy, there's two types of terrain that have been a pain due to their absence (only two, promise).

-Undergrowth, shrubland, chapparal, call it what you like. The idea is something intermediary between grass and forest, made up of tangled man-height tree saplings that make passage very, very hard for both infantry and vehicles. As I see it, it would restrict movement and visibility more than high grass, probably somewhere in the level of rough. As such, it would be a nice alternative to full-out forest in dryer climates (e.g. all around the Mediterranean, in most of the Middle East and southern Africa), and be more credible than high trees in desert maps.
In the case where forest can be superimposed on it, it would become undergrowth proper, turning a nice clean forest into a tangled vegetal mess with trees sticking out of it.
I know there have been discussions here in the past about the movement ratings of forest terrain, mostly boiling down to different people having different experiences of their local forests. As such, if you have a dedicated "undergrowth" terrain, you can use it for unkempt, impassable forest, while the "forest" terrain alone or with "forest ground" would stand for well-mannered forests with nice straight trees planted wide apart like apparently in some places in Finland.

-White rough. It may sound silly, but I've bumped head-first into this one every time I tried to map the Mediterranean coast (again). The current rough palette is excellent for sand and rock desert, including a very nice red desert ground. [self-advertisement]see my CWM Chadian campaign http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif [/self-advertisement]
Grey rough and impassable are far too dark and best suited for northern climates, off the cuff I'd associate them with Scottish or Norwegian shores.
Just for the look of it, I would really like a lighter rocky terrain, maybe with some inbuilt vegetation.

Without both of these how am I supposed to map this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d7/A_calanque_cliff_with_spare_vegetation.JPG) or this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Calanques2.jpg) kind of places? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Disclaimer: I have no idea if the game allows for more terrain types, in code, type or interface, I'm just bouncing ideas.

[Marek_Tucan]

PlasmaKrab said:
this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Calanques2.jpg) kind of places? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif




's not Rough, 's Impassable http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Marcello]

"-Undergrowth, shrubland, chapparal, call it what you like. The idea is something intermediary between grass and forest, made up of tangled man-height tree saplings that make passage very, very hard for both infantry and vehicles."

That sounds like a good idea.

"Just for the look of it, I would really like a lighter rocky terrain, maybe with some inbuilt vegetation."

There is already a rocky terrain with some built in vegetation: summer rough. Nothing whitish but as it has already been noted what are you looking for is actually a white impassable.

[Marcello]

"Nothing whitish but as it has already been noted what are you looking for is actually a white impassable."

On a second though however "winter rough" comes quite close to simulate what you are looking for. A bit crazy perhaps but it should work.

[PlasmaKrab]

Marcello said:
"Nothing whitish but as it has already been noted what are you looking for is actually a white impassable."

On a second though however "winter rough" comes quite close to simulate what you are looking for. A bit crazy perhaps but it should work.


Good point, gotta try that. I just hope there won't be a 'winter rough' tag showing up. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[RecruitMonty]

So let's see if I can summarise this again:

# Sand Berms (Small/Intermediate).
# Walls (Colours?).
# More "cosmetic" damage to lighter (at least) houses when hit by heavy/medium mortars and arty. Something cosmetic on the ground too (if possible).
# Shrubland.
# Different graphic for the wooden bridge.
# A better graphic for the dug-in tanks.
# More varied sounds.

Thats about it isn't it?

[PlasmaKrab]

RecruitMonty said:
Thats about it isn't it?


You don't really want us to exhaust all the ideas hanging around, do you? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
I know I could go on for days about ERA classes, active protection, EW effects, unit classes...
I know 90% of this is unfeasible at any rate, but isn't all we already said here? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Marcello]

"I know I could go on for days about ERA classes, active protection, EW effects, unit classes..."

Then start.

Maybe there is something else we can find a partial fix for.

[Marek_Tucan]

Well, as far as partial fixes go, short-ranged TI system (say for Eryx or TI infantry scopes in general) may be born by getting system similar to AAA fire control - ie say vision of 20 would be normal, vvision of 120 would be TI with range of 20. However, whether it is code-wise possible is in the stars and I won't consider it as priority.

[RecruitMonty]

Sand berms, sounds, walls and cosmetic enhancements are not beyond the game engine. The existing terrain and OOB features suggest that much.

[Epoletov_SPR]

SPWaW and WinSP are similar or not?

Probably to make in WinSP " Command Control " as in SPWaW (to save Orders)?

[Marek_Tucan]

SPWaW is based on SP3 game egine, SP:MBT and SP:WW2 are based on SP2 engine. Similar, but so close AFAIK.

[narwan]

Epoletov_SPR said:
SPWaW and WinSP are similar or not?

Probably to make in WinSP " Command Control " as in SPWaW (to save Orders)?



No they are not. They are completely different games now; they just happen to share a similar but very, very distant past.
Besides having different SP game engines as their basis (SP2 vs SP3) The games also have different design teams who have different opinions on the game and what is desirable. Don't expect features that are 'standard' in WaW in this game, they're not here for a good reason.

[Epoletov_SPR]

To make for SAM, SP-SAM, etc. shooting by a volley (some rockets from one unit shoot at the same Turn).


But, that cost unit strongly did not increase.

[Marcello]

"Sand berms, sounds, walls and cosmetic enhancements are not beyond the game engine. The existing terrain and OOB features suggest that much."

Likely. Unless there is some limitation sand berms, for example, could replace hedgerows in the desert menu like it happens for many others terrains.

"To make for SAM, SP-SAM, etc. shooting by a volley (some rockets from one unit shoot at the same Turn).
But, that cost unit strongly did not increase."

Can you try to explain what you are saying? As it is I do not get what you mean.

[Marek_Tucan]

Epoletov_SPR said:
To make for SAM, SP-SAM, etc. shooting by a volley (some rockets from one unit shoot at the same Turn).




You mean the entire platoon (in game terms) firing at the same target in the same time? But that already happens with standoff SAM's and "direct-fire" SAM's are limited by visibility to target.

Where volley fire would be more useful will be in ground combat, for example for dispersing responsive opfire (kinda forming Pakfronts) but that would not be possible within code I'm afraid.

[Epoletov_SPR]

For example, SAM "Patriot" now shoots one rocket at one Turn.
To change to 3-4 rockets in one Turn (in each of four weapon slot to place a rocket).

To shoot all rockets at once, as well as at realities.
You can always disconnect weapon slot to not shoot all rockets.
Cost unit to not increase.

It is necessary to edit only OOB SAM capable so to shoot at realities.

[Marek_Tucan]

Ah, I see. But that would lead to a completely different can of worms, as say AI cannot switch weapons off and on and thus, all the SAM's would expend most of their missiles at very first target.
Also I doubt it's standard to fire entire four-cell Patriot launcher at one single plane.

[PlasmaKrab]

Marek_Tucan said:
Ah, I see. But that would lead to a completely different can of worms, as say AI cannot switch weapons off and on and thus, all the SAM's would expend most of their missiles at very first target.
Also I doubt it's standard to fire entire four-cell Patriot launcher at one single plane.

That wouldn't necessarily ruin the gameplay, just make that SAM unit a merciless killer in IA hands and reduce the ammo store that will be at least half-wasted in any case. Thing is, if you add weapon slots until full, the IA will always shoot all the slots available until the target is down.
Since most if not all of the multi-slots SAMs (i.e. those that can be reliably proven to be able to shoot and guide several missiles at the same target) are fairly recent as battleground units, they are also quite sophisticated. Epoletov mentioned the Patriot, I'd rather make that the PAC-3 with the new KE missile. The 9M96 series in the S-400 complex could probably handle it as well, plus of course the ASTER, though my CW version to this day may be just that slightly overkill...
All this just to say that even considering the IA can't stop, a SAM with 2 to 4 weapon slots will only shoot at one target while it's there.
And this is important: it will not shoot several targets in the same turn except if you fool around with the ROF rating.
This being said, you can and should fool around with the ROF rating to handle SAMs that can either fire on the move or engage several targets in one turn's length. Works with ATGM units as well BTW.

So to get back to Epoletov's original point, volley-fire is doable by SAM units as such, but effectively without much cost increase.

[PlasmaKrab]

"I know I could go on for days about ERA classes, active protection, EW effects, unit classes..."

Then start.

Maybe there is something else we can find a partial fix for.

OK, I just didn't want to hijack the thread for too long.
Go offline for two days and there's replies all over the place! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Regarding ERA, there are two little (?) things that IMO could make the whole thing more realistic.
Firstly, change the class number from 2 to say 5, from the early slim stuff you find on 80s Chinese tanks and to this day on APCs all over the world to near-future heavy-slab asymmetrical-multilayered-whatever arrays that will cover e.g. the fated Black Eagle, all through the common ERA classes.

Before you ask, this only makes sense if the ERA effect is quantified a bit more than it currently is.
As I see it, each class should be assigned a warhead size value range against which it works (heavier weapons being assumed to blast through the ERA array unhindered and lighter warheads being not enough for setting it off), a max HEAT penetration it can absorb at zero incidence angle, a similar max AP/sabot penetration value, and a chance of stopping tandem-HEAT warheads.
As such, they would be modeled more like add-on armor than like a magical bonus that can stop blunt the most powerful weapons without any remain.
That would call for messages more like "ERA reduces penetration by XX", probably with a small chance of still getting "ERA defeats HEAT warhead" if the HEAT penetration is inferior to the ERA max resistance.

Here is how it could be played out:

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>class ERA values max WHS min WHS max HEAT max AP tandem chance real-life examples
1 1 to 10 4 2 30 0 0 anything weaker and lighter than Kontakt-1
2 11 to 20 5 3 45 5 0 Kontakt-1, Blazer
3 21 to 30 6 3 60 15 25 ERAWA, DYNAS
4 31 to 40 7 3 75 30 75 Kontakt-5 and similar
5 41 to 50 9 3 90 50 90 Kaktus and other future applications</pre><hr />

The values are debatable, but I think the principle can bring something more to the combat behavior of ERA-equipped vehicles.

[Epoletov_SPR]

Probably I was mistaken about SAM "Patriot", but not about other modern SAM.

We have a reserve officer of air defence, it speaks that SAM "Patriot" shoots one rocket on one target.

[Shan]

Marek_Tucan,

this is slightly off topic but a problem that always bothered me... I saw that you posted above that the problem of nations always using the same side of the map in specific country pairings can be circumvented by using the allied puchase option...

Sounds good - however, I guess that means the experience + morale ratings of the 'master' nation apply to the allied nation as well - therefore, a good solution, I never thought of it - as long as you consider to manually adjust these ratings appropriately. But in the preferences options, this is - as I understand it - summarized under the option 'troop quality' and cannot be adjusted individually - am I right?

Other downsides, I guess, would be that the leader names don't change, etc.

[Mobhack]

The side of the map does not matter in the slightest really as there is no indication of North on the maps at all. There are 4 directions - top, left, right, and bottom. Where north is, you can decide for yourself (some scenario designers have indicated it with a text marker, for example).

Therefore, one side is set up along one edge, and the other on the opposite. Just like a tabletop wargame - you have your side of the table and your opponent the other.

As to Allied forces - please read up on the use of the "Captured" option in the game help. Try a purchase using both allied and captured (With ID tags on to help the experiment) and examine the leader names and ratings.


Cheers
Andy

[Epoletov_SPR]

It is necessary to increase quantity of letters in a line of the name units.
Now often there is no place for a writing of the full name units.
For example, Mi-28N " Night Hunter " (the name of the Russian manufacturer new attack the helicopter).
It is necessary not only Russian, and all. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

------

It is desirable that machine guns in section shot on greater range, as at realities (now range MG in infantry section = 12 hex).

[Mobhack]

Longer unit or weapon names will not happen. Legacy game code limitation.

Andy

[pdoktar]

Epoletov_SPR said:


It is desirable that machine guns in section shot on greater range, as at realities (now range MG in infantry section = 12 hex).



I disagree. 12 hexes is 600meters in real life. 600meters is a long range for open sights in non-tripod mounted weapons. Our PKM SAW seldom shot over 500meters with any accuracy at normal, half upper torso sized targets. With rifles, under simulated combat, so no soft cushions and clear lines of fire, it was very difficult to shoot with any accuracy past 300meters. So I think 400m for rifles and 600m for SAWs is the upper limit of effective fire.

[JohnHale]

RecruitMonty said:
One of the most attractive features of a game like this are the weapon sounds, the more realistic and varied the better.



I agree.

Don/Andy - it's not like it's as important as the icing on the cake - nor even the cherry on top of the icing on top of the cake. But I do find that sounds add to the "ambience" of the game.

If it could easily be done (and I know I'm not the one doing the work http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif so it's easy for me to say) I would welcome it.

Trivial, I know........

[Epoletov_SPR]

Immobilized Tank in Mud, in the house, etc.

To make rescue of the got stuck machines.
For example other tank or Engineer vechile could make it.

It only idea. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Marcello]

"Immobilized Tank in Mud, in the house, etc.
To make rescue of the got stuck machines.
For example other tank or Engineer vechile could make it.
it only idea."

This can be done by inputting a 2XX value in the carry capacity parameter of said vehicle. I have already done it and it does work: you can load tanks stuck in collapsed building etc. and carry them away. The problem is that it works too fast compared to most real world situations.

[KraMax]

To take out the tank from a battlefield not a problem.
The idea consists in that the tank after repair could continue to be at war.

[Marcello]

"To take out the tank from a battlefield not a problem.
The idea consists in that the tank after repair could continue to be at war."

It's too much time consuming to fit in the game time scale.
This game is designed to deal with high intensity battles fought in a limited time span. Repairs are outside its scope. If game length was extended so that repairs were meaningful then you would have also to worry about the fuel consumption of several vehicles and various others issues.

[Marek_Tucan]

KraMax said:
To take out the tank from a battlefield not a problem.
The idea consists in that the tank after repair could continue to be at war.




You won't tow 50 ton immobilised beast from a building wreckage in 3 minutes = one turn http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[KraMax]

And I also did not speak that the tank of 50 tons to make for 3 minutes...
I spoke for example random numbers, for example from 3 turns to 7 turns... It turns out from 15 minutes till 45 minutes. Why is not present? The tank has only got stuck in impassable places, anything at it has not broken, it needs to be towed off. To it not a turret has taken down from a shell http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[PlasmaKrab]

Guys, this has been talked about over and over and over.
Just as Marek said: you won't tow a 50-ton tank out of a ditch or fallen house in one turn's real-life equivalent, let alone move it to anywhere.

Of course one could hack the OOBs to come up with ARVs, and AFAIK that has been done now and then.
Why this is and apparently will remain a no-go for the official version goes as follows: (beside the time issue)

So you get your ARV with carry capacity 255 to tow away the heaviest tanks. With any luck you can use it to take away stuck AFVs, providing it doesn't get stuck itself and said AFV comes unstuck when you unload it (well duh, looks like the "immobilized" aka "speed=0" is written into the unit's data no matter what, but that remains to be checked).
Now, supposing all the above conditions are met and your ARV is functional, what on earth should prevent you from isung it as a super-battletaxi?
It is mobile, armored, and you can stuff it as full as a landing craft! You'll tell me, that's what player rules are for, but then you'd better make these ARVs designer-only access (e.g. modify tehn inside scenarios).
And if ever you put them in OOBs, make even more damn sure that they don't fall into IA hands, because the IA doesn't understand nothing to player rules.

This being said (or ranted...), there's this nice shiny and underused "tank transporter" class the IA isn't ever going to use, so if anyone here has OOB space and time to waste to try this out, lt us knoy if it works! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Epoletov_SPR]

It is necessary to make screen/window size for notebook (1280x800, etc.).

[Mobhack]

Epoletov_SPR said:
It is necessary to make screen/window size for notebook (1280x800, etc.).



Use the CD version in windowed mode. Setting the window resolution to a size greater than the desktop resolution, and the window will use the desktop size, less the area allocated to the windows task bar (Which must be set to no auto-hide and be at the normal place on the bottom of the screen, and standard height). As already described in the "tuning your machine" section of the Game Guide.

Therefore, for a 1280 by 800 wide-screen laptop, select 1280 by 1024 (or even 1600!) and it will fill only the available desktop screen area. And it'll leave the task bar so you can see email notifications, the clock etc.

This is how several of our playtesters play on their laptops. (My IBM has a standard 1024 by 768 LCD so I cannot verify).

Cheers
Andy

[PatG]

PlasmaKrab said:
&lt;snip&gt;
This being said (or ranted...), there's this nice shiny and underused "tank transporter" class the IA isn't ever going to use, so if anyone here has OOB space and time to waste to try this out, lt us knoy if it works! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



As a side note, I have used this sort of thing to simulate tanks on flat cars and specialized Polish tank carrying drasines for armoured trains in SPWW2. It works well but unloading is still a bit fast compared to reality even for the drasines.

[Epoletov_SPR]

Two more ideas, one (#2) already was discussed for certain earlier.


1. To give tanks ability to destroy infantry in one with it hex (arrival vechicle on the soldier). Like Melee only the tank destroys infantry.


2. To accelerate the ending of fight when it is senseless for continuing.
Flags except for one are for example grasped all, 5/6 armies of the opponent are destroyed, and fight all boringly lasts.

[Marcello]

I thought I might toss a couple of ideas.
1) A few "tall" buildings, which would enable any units in them to see farther in the urban landscape.
2) Some trick to make overpasses without having to use rivers and such.

[pdoktar]

I´m not a fan of the overrun attack. I doubt it will hapen in real combat and even less when dealing with 50meter hexes.

[Marek_Tucan]

Marcello said:
I thought I might toss a couple of ideas.
1) A few "tall" buildings, which would enable any units in them to see farther in the urban landscape.
2) Some trick to make overpasses without having to use rivers and such.



Second that http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I'd also like to see 1) 1-hex deep water - something like wider stream with heights of -3 and lower (deep water) being available. There are many rivers narrower than 50 meters and still impassable.

2) Also it'd be nice to have more road-terrain interaction, say road on rough - now it behaves as road whether you are driving along it or are coming to it from open terrain, I'd like if it behaved like road just when you are driving along, but upon entering from neighboring hex it'd be Rough (or impassable or whatever). Scientifically speaking, now all terrain features are anisothropic, I'd like to have the linear features isothropic.
(another example - fire trenches, they should allow fairly quick movement of infantry along them, but penalise crossing as it is now)

But I doubt the 2) is possible. OTOH 1) - there was terrain feature like this, IIRC in SPWAW, it was called "canal" and was generally graphically wider Stream and behaving like deep water.

[KraMax]

DRG
-------------------
Question:

It is possible to increase quantity slots for the units in OOB - to 1500 or 2000 slots?

[DRG]

Almost anything is "possible" but I can tell you that right here and right now there are NO plans to expand the OOB's in that manner. Not now and not in any future I can foresee

There are no plans to make any further structural adjustments to either game. There are a few new items that will be added to this next patch but the game has been stretched about as far as it can be stretched.

OK?

Don

[KraMax]

OK

[Brummbar]

Marcello said:
I thought I might toss a couple of ideas.
1) A few "tall" buildings, which would enable any units in them to see farther in the urban landscape.
2) Some trick to make overpasses without having to use rivers and such.




Any chance of multi-level buildings? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

[PlasmaKrab]

Without going all funny about close-quarters commbat (which would be far-fetched at that scale), I'd second the idea of tall buildings. Also buildings on slopes, I keep getting weird things with mountain towns. All in all, I'd find interesting to be able to set the altitude of building hexes as well, meaning the top heigth at which it can be occupied and targetted.

[TLAM_Strike]

Well since this spans many OOBs I'll post it here, Idea for snipers, the single man sniper units are fine for WWII or 3rd world armies but not for modern US and NATO armies that have two man teams of snipers. Make western sniper units two man teams (the USMC OOB does this) but make the sniper rifle the second weapon (no weapon or grenades maybe a pistol or carbine/PDW of some sort as weapon 1) since the number of men in a unit multiplies weapon 1’s effectiveness. This gives the sniper units a simulated spotter who can also pick up the rifle and keep fighting if the sniper is killed.

[Marcello]

"Well since this spans many OOBs I'll post it here, Idea for snipers, the single man sniper units are fine for WWII or 3rd world armies but not for modern US and NATO armies that have two man teams of snipers."

Well the soviets were using two men sniper teams during WW2.

[DRG]

Interesting...... we already have ample number of posts from people *****ing snipers are too hard to kill ( and an equal number from experienced players who say they aren't ) and here we have a request to double the difficulty.

This is another example of why, not matter what we do, someone will think it should be done a different way. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Don

[TLAM_Strike]

Well as I think about it more perhaps only snipers with vision greater than 15 should be made in to "teams". According to US Army manual FM 3-31-20 (The Infantry Battalion) teams are eather two or three men, Lead Sniper, Sniper and Driver/Spotter, with the Lead Sniper armed with a M16/M4, the Sniper with a sniper rifle, and the Driver/Spotter armed with a M16/M4 + a M203 GL.

Maybe sniper teams with vision greater than 15 should have three troops, weapon 1 as a M4, weapon 2 as a Sniper Rifle or Heavy Sniper Rifle, and weapon 3 as a M203 GL, weapon 4 could be hand Gernades. Or 1 as nothing, 2 as the Sniper Rifle, 3 as the M16/M4 x2 and 4 as an M203.

[Marcello]

A small but worth mentioning thing would be incorporating at least one of the icons made for the S-300 SAM family in the standard game inventory. The SA-2 or whatever is used in its place does not do it justice.

[Zipuli]

Don't have all the posts read as there's too much stuff there, but having an individual "vision" rating for each weapon would be fantastic. Maybe it's hard/impossible to do... hopefully not.

As it's now, a unit that has TI equipment can fire all its weapons using the TI. As an example during night when Leo 2 gunner fire his L44 and MG3 using TIS, the loader will not fire his MG3 accurately into the darkness because he has no TIS in his weapon. And the gunner won't waste time and energy into "leading" the loaders fire into the target... Same with a recce section with a handheld Thermal Imager - using that the section can see in the dark - but not fire their weapons accurately, if they got image intensifiers on their rifles, as the TI is not a sight, just like a guy with binoculars is not a sniper.

Mainly because a unit has one TI rating for all weapons, it's now an über unit. Using the recce section as an example, having section visibility as 40 (TI) the unit can do its work, recon, even in the lowest visibilty. But the section's Assault Rifle has vision of 15 (II sight) which enables him to fire only 15 hexes. And as the M72 LAW has no night sight, it means the LAW cannot fire more than the vision setting currently (which can be less than LAW effective range).

Zip

[Marek_Tucan]

Zipuli said:
Don't have all the posts read as there's too much stuff there, but having an individual "vision" rating for each weapon would be fantastic. Maybe it's hard/impossible to do... hopefully not.




I'm 'fraid that with the way OOB files are set up and interpreted in the game it'd be very hard to do. Not to say it won't be a nice touch http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[DRG]

There is NO WAY you will see individual "vision" ratings for each weapon without tearing the entire game code apart and starting over.

IF we were to do that then all development of these games would cease, all support for the existing games would end and maybe in 5 years you would see another game but there wouldn't be anything "free" about it and it wouldn't really look anything like what we have now

We are at the stage of game development where many "ideas" on now to make the game "better" would mean tossing out hugh chunks of code and starting over. I can tell you this..... everytime we make a change to this code there are always knock off effects in areas we didn't expect partly because of the complexity of the code and partly because it has been cobbled together over 10+ years and it does things now people only dreamt about 10 years ago .

However, feel free to continue bringing up new ideas. Who knows...... one of them might actually be doable http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Don

[Marek_Tucan]

DRG said:

However, feel free to continue bringing up new ideas. Who knows...... one of them might actually be doable http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif




That's the idea of this thread, no? Give a million of apeas a typewriter and one may eventually write Hamlet http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Epoletov_SPR]

To make possible addition of the sounds in WinSP.
But at game with "Full Security" there would be no prevention about broken &amp;#1054;&amp;#1054;&amp;#1042;.

[DRG]

You might want to try explaining this again.

IF you modify OOB's in any way and play full security PBEM you will get a game failure.

IF you modify the sound files alone there will not be a game failure as long as the OOB's themselves are not modified

IF you are suggesting we allow sound mods to the OOB's that don't trip the PBEM security that is not possible.

Don

[Epoletov_SPR]

If to replace sounds in folder WinSP-&gt; Game Data-&gt; Sounds.

It will not be failure game at " Full Securiy "?

I guess, that the answer will be - YES.

[TLAM_Strike]

Just a little excript from the US Army manual on Snipers: TO&amp;E for standard 2 Man Sniper Team from FM 23-10 Sniper Training Manual

Sniper
1 M24 Sniper Rifle w/100 rounds
1 M9 9mm pistol w/45 rounds
8 Grenades (Urban Ops)
1 M18A1 Claymore Mine

Observer
1 M16A1/A2 + M203 with Scope W/ 210+ rounds of 5.56mm and 9 40mm GL rounds.
M9 9mm Pistol
8 Grenades (Urban Ops)

I recommend the following layout for a two man team:

W1 None
W2 Sniper Rifle
W3 M16 or M4
W4 M203 or Hand Grenades

I recommend the following layout for a three man team (Mentioned in the Battalion Field Manual FM 3-31-20):

W1 M16 or M4
W2 Sniper Rifle
W3 M203
W4 Claymore or Hand Grenades

Well thats all I really have to contribute on the subject. Let me know if you want the manuals for refrence and can't find them online.

[DRG]

Epoletov_SPR said:
If to replace sounds in folder WinSP-&gt; Game Data-&gt; Sounds.

It will not be failure game at " Full Securiy "?

I guess, that the answer will be - YES.



IF you change the sounds in the Game Date/Sounds folder it WILL NOT cause a failure in PBEM full security UNLESS you modify the OOB's.

OK ?

You can change the sounds that play in the game all you want and not have a secure PBEM failure unless you make changes to the game OOB's. I explained this in the last post on this subject. The sounds themselves are just WAV's and the game doesn't really care which sound you have in the sound folder. The security only cares about altered OOB's.



Don

[Shan]

Concerning immobilized vehicles: I am aware of the quick-fix solution but the problem - besides the unrealistic time of recovery - is that AVREs and the like will also very likely get stuck in that hex, as the other tanks are stuck in there for a reason - if I imagine my ongoing PBEM... my opponent would wish for such an engineer vehicle, he's got about 15 tanks and IFVs stuck in stream and swamp hexes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif but I am quite sure he's get even more angry as the engineer tank would not make it out of the second mud hole,,, therefore I don't see a solution for this to be done (UNLESS you mod the engineer tank into a Heavy Helo class and give it cyrry capacity=255... + the approbriate SLOW speed... THEN it would be possible to recover anything without getting bogged down!! But this could also be abused easily,,,

Another issue:
I am not sure if this has been mentioned - but in MBT an SPWW2 it's often the case that already-won battles carry on endlessly because the enemy - esp. if it's in a PBEM - still has 1-2 squads left and is annoyingly hiding them and trying to recapture a V-Hex. I understand that there's this force-broken thing embedded already but IMHO this should be tweaked. Hunting down routed crews may be fun in a game or two but it's annoying and an enemy who holds one V-Hex out of 20 with a few men still has lost the battle and is should be over earlier - not so for the AI, though.

[DRG]

Charging into swamp, mud or stream hexes will get you immobilized in the game and in real life and if you do this in real life the nice boys from the tank recovery corp are not going to run out in the middle of a battle to pull you out and yes, I understand some players would like to have the ability to "recover" tanks but it's not going to happen. If you are REALLY worried about immobilizing your vehicles in one of those type of hexes STAY AWAY FROM THEM and if you just cannot resist entering one stop before you do and wait until the next turn to cross and then only one hex at a time to keep your speed down. OR if the resulting immobilizations still annoy you then turn "breakdowns" off in the preferences and you will be able to run through those hexes at any speed you want without fear of immobilizations. Engineering vehicles are not immune to terrain and must be handled with care as well

There are ample historical examples of tanks and engineering vehicles being immobilized in wet, muddy terrain. Read anything on the Battles conducted in the early part of 1945 rear the Rhine. I have read accounts of battles were virtually every Sherman, Flail and Kangaroo ended up stuck.

We had a "surrender" option in the code in the past so PBEM games could be ended when one side decided they had enough but we found people could use it to cheat and it was removed.
There will always be people who feel the games drag on too long and there will always be people who like the opportunity to try an fight their way to a lesser defeat in situations like that and there is no way to make both sides happy.

Don

[Shan]

Don,

I get your point concerning the recovery of tanks, and it's quite clear that this cannot be represented in the game.

What people, including me, tend to forget, is the time span represented by one battle. Everyone who has ever seen a real-life heavy recovery operation will agree that it takes time to get a badly stuck tank out of there - even if you have the latest Bergepanzer Bueffel at the ready. Modern recovery tanks nowadays do have quick-recovery systems that enable them to hook up a disabled tank quickly, without anyone having to hop off, but this probably only works on a road but definitely not for the tanks stuck in swamps and creeks that we are facing in the game.

Has the issue of bridge-laying tanks ever been brought up? I guess this one will be impossible, too...


About the other thing: A surrender option would be nice, too bad it had to be deleted - but I was talking about those situations where a player SHOULD surrender but still carries on fighting with 3-men squads and crews --- is there any way to make the force status more transparent while playing? As fog of war prevents me from knwoing my enemy's status, that one should be left out, but having an idea about my own force's status would be great (morale-wise and so on - how close am I to a general rout?)

[thatguy96]

Shan said:
Has the issue of bridge-laying tanks ever been brought up? I guess this one will be impossible, too...


As one of the many people who have experimented with what can be done in this regard with the existing code, I would imagine that it would require whole new classes to be formed and many many lines of code to be written.

As it stands now it can be done...sort of. A bridge would have to be treated like a barge, and a AVLB as a barge carrier. The bridge has to be allowed to move, because while barges can unload onto shore hexes without actually moving onto them, the barge has to be on a shore hex to load. What this means is that even in a single hex of water, the barge has to be able to move one hex to complete the operation, as would a "bridge."

As it stands now pontoon bridge sections that can be used as barges in real life are about the farthest one can model accurately. Beyond that, what you'd essentially have is an armored barge carrier if you tried to model an AVLB, and you'd have to change the stock barge to a bridge, which would also screw with other routines.

[JohnHale]

DRG said:
Charging into swamp, mud or stream hexes will get you immobilized in the game and in real life and if you do this in real life the nice boys from the tank recovery corp are not going to run out in the middle of a battle to pull you out.

Don



You mean like some of these:

http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2008/01/tank-accidents-part-2.html

[Randy]

With regards to the mobile bridges, there is one already in the game! Its in the Israeli OOB. This is the Timsakh heavy amphibian, which is the same as the M2 mobile bridging ferry. In real life you have a group of them in a river connected by ramps so that vehicles can travel over them. In the game they have to be used as heavy amphibians which carry the equipment across a river.

[Marcello]

There is also a GSP ferry in the icon inventory if you want to make use of it.

http://www.galope.com/mike/eng1_info.htm

[Randy]

Great, I just saw it as icon 3228. That would be good to see those lined up across a river. Thats what I love about the Steel Panthers series of games whether it is SPWAW or SPMBT/SPWWII, this game is limited to ones imagination. It is very versatile!!

[Epoletov_SPR]

To add ability to destroy a barbed wire bombardment of artillery.



To limit use no partroop infantry and others units in parachute landings.
For example, having increased death rate at landing.

[Marek_Tucan]

@paratroops, unless I'm mistaken, it already works that way.

[Marcello]

Epoletov_SPR said:
To add ability to destroy a barbed wire bombardment of artillery.




I haven't studied the problem in detail but, from some WW1 sources I have read, it would appear that more often than not artillery would simply kick it around without opening a breach in it.

[thatguy96]

I think what Epoletov was suggesting was that it perhaps be more extreme.

[Marek_Tucan]

I'd say it shouldn't - any marginally same commander would put his troops through atleast basic parachute course if he ever intended to drop 'em off an airplane - so if human player decides say in campaign "gee, in next battle I'm gonna drop these fresh conscripts behind enemy lines just for fun", IRL it'd include a period of training.

[Epoletov_SPR]

thatguy96 said:
I think what Epoletov was suggesting was that it perhaps be more extreme.



Yes, it so.




Still a question and the offer.

If the transport helicopter bears arms, unless it should not take less soldier inside?

[Suhiir]

I seem to recall a story about the Russians dropping guys in crates of straw into snowbanks during early WW II.
No clue if there's any truth to the story, probably not, but it is amuseing.

[thatguy96]

Epoletov_SPR said:
If the transport helicopter bears arms, unless it should not take less soldier inside?


I think that it should represent whether or not a helicopter with weapons fitted A) has the necessary room to carry troops and B) the necessary lift capacity to carry them.

[Suhiir]

Good example of this is the H-19 Chickasaw used by the USMC between 1951-1962.
It was primarily a troop carrier (10 man capacity), but the armed version (2 X M1919 MG's and 2 pods of 2.75" rockets) couldn't carry any troops.
The engine just wasn't powerful enough to carry men and armament.

[Epoletov_SPR]

I understand that it is a lot of work for modification in WinSPMBT, but I offer this idea that transport helicopters with arms could take passengers less.

[thatguy96]

Do you have an example in game that's specifically bugging you? I can't think of an example of a helicopter in game that has an unreasonable carry capacity. Mi-24s can carry a small number of people in addition to a full armament load, as can the Mi-8/17. Helicopters such as armed H-34s or UH-1A/Bs could not.

[PlasmaKrab]

Epoletov, you mean reducing the carry capacity or armed transport helicopters?
Like an Mi-8TVK (or whatever) with full complement of S-5 pods and Falanga missiles could take less troops than the basic Mi-8T?
Isn't that already the case? I know in my OOBs the armed Mi-8 has a carry of 124 against 132 or similar, but off the cuff I can't remember the official version.

If you're thinking that armed helicopters should not be able to carry significant troops, I'm of the opinion that if there is room, there should be the possibility to carry something. Even if it is not used in the game.

[KraMax]

PlasmaKrab
---------------
I agree with you.

[RecruitMonty]

,,To limit use no partroop infantry and others units in parachute landings.
For example, having increased death rate at landing."

Why do we want to make Paratroops ungainly and thoroughly useless?

Isn't that a wee bit silly?

[Marcello]

RecruitMonty said:
,,To limit use no partroop infantry and others units in parachute landings.
For example, having increased death rate at landing."

Why do we want to make Paratroops ungainly and thoroughly useless?

Isn't that a wee bit silly?



I guess he actually means that non paratroop infantry should have an increased death rate at landing and the machine translation mangled it.

[Epoletov_SPR]

PlasmaKrab said:
Epoletov, you mean reducing the carry capacity or armed transport helicopters?
Like an Mi-8TVK (or whatever) with full complement of S-5 pods and Falanga missiles could take less troops than the basic Mi-8T?
Isn't that already the case? I know in my OOBs the armed Mi-8 has a carry of 124 against 132 or similar, but off the cuff I can't remember the official version.

If you're thinking that armed helicopters should not be able to carry significant troops, I'm of the opinion that if there is room, there should be the possibility to carry something. Even if it is not used in the game.




The helicopter has the limited carrying capacity.
Also I think if to take a maximum of the weapon then with a landing the helicopter will not fly up.
Here already there was an example such a case, it is described above.

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

To limit use no partroop infantry and others units in parachute landings.
For example, having increased death rate at landing."

Why do we want to make Paratroops ungainly and thoroughly useless?

Isn't that a wee bit silly?



Wished to tell, that infantry without preparation of parachute jumps, it was less often used thus.
They to themselves will break legs at landing!

Or to make it the greater penalty of morals at landing, it is terrible in fact to jump with a parachute for the first time moreover in rear of the enemy! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[Marek_Tucan]

Epoletov_SPR said:
Wished to tell, that infantry without preparation of parachute jumps, it was less often used thus.
They to themselves will break legs at landing!

Or to make it the greater penalty of morals at landing, it is terrible in fact to jump with a parachute for the first time moreover in rear of the enemy! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif



But that's just wrong I think, no at least barely sane commander of say Army or Front would allow some weenie Brigade or even less commender to jump totally unprepared troops in an operation. Even non-paratroop units would get at least very basic parachute course (legs together, bent, if parachute doesn't open, quick prayer) if anyone would want to drop them and have them at least basically combat worthy.
Sure, they'd have higher casaulty rate on landing - just as they have it in reality - but even the German ad-hoc paratrooper unit used in Ardennes under von der Heydte suffered losses primarily due to pilot's inexperience and dispersion than due to inexperience of many "ersatz" paratroopers.
You have to always look on "the greater scheme of things" when planning a SP battle - "booking" airborne assault wasn't something Brigade commander can do at a whim, this means that he'd have to have planes and troops granted by his commanders and that in the time the operation is being prepared the troops intended for the op would receive at least minimal parachute training.

[RecruitMonty]

Ah, now I understand. For African countries and other 3rd World affairs, in MBT, if they actually have Paratroops (not sure they have enough cash for that) that might very well make sense.

[Epoletov_SPR]

To shoot usual rounds pressing button " Z " probably through a smoke (no LOS).
And here to shoot smoke rounds also it is impossible, and it is a pity!

[DRG]

Epoletov_SPR said:
To shoot usual rounds pressing button " Z " probably through a smoke (no LOS).
And here to shoot smoke rounds also it is impossible, and it is a pity!



I know we are both fighting language barrier but these translations do not help much

Try again. What exactly is it you are complaining about ?

It appears you are complaining that it is impossible to "Z" fire through smoke (no LOS)or fire smoke rounds through smoke (no LOS) using the "X" key yet I have no problem doing one or the other so either I've totally misunderstood the complaint or you're doing something wrong.



Don

[Epoletov_SPR]

Excuse for my English! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Penguin.gif

It is impossible to shoot smoke rounds (button "X") through smoke (no LOS).
At the same time bullets and HE, AP round fly through a smoke when we press on button " Z ".

Also it is possible also smoke round to shoot even if it is not visible where, (at random, not precisely).

[badger45]

I just tried it, and it is entirely possible to shoot smoke rounds through the smoke using X key. I don't see, where you experience problem. The ONLY problem I can see, is that when you use Z key for normal indirect fire, you see mouse pointer changed to crosshairs, if you are able to fire indirectly at that hex. But when you use X key, to fire smoke, your mouse pointer change to crosshairs only on the terrain, that is in your LOS. That however does not mean, that firing is impossible. Just try to click on the spot, that you can fire with Z key, and you will see, that you can use X key as well.

Hope that helps.
badger45

[Epoletov_SPR]

Perfectly, you have well told all.
I did not know about it.

But has remained one cosmetic defect.
It is necessary to make, that the marker (a cross in a circle) appeared at use of button " X " also as well as at use of button " Z. ".

[Lampshade111]

While nobody knows how much of the program is going to survive intact the U.S. Army's Future Combat Systems vehicles would be nice to have in WinSPMBT. I believe somebody posted a list of the manned vehicles earlier.

[Marcello]

Lampshade111 said:
While nobody knows how much of the program is going to survive intact the U.S. Army's Future Combat Systems vehicles would be nice to have in WinSPMBT. I believe somebody posted a list of the manned vehicles earlier.



I would wait before having the team spending time and effort on a program which has the guillotine hanging upon it while there is so much else to fix. Until units are actually issued with them I would not bother.
And if you go down the "what if" route there must be a zillion of MBT-70, Sgt York, Cheyenne etc developed in the last 50 years. The whole US OOB probably would not be enough to contain them all.

[Lampshade111]

I suppose. I don't know if the team should wait until 2015 or whenever units are supposed to start getting those vehicles however. Perhaps they should just wait until there are some real pre-production vehicles.

A few other additions to the U.S. Army OOB would be nice. The M109A6 PIM is the biggest one I can think of. The Army has been considering a few Bradley upgrades too. Plus a M1A3 is rumored to be in the works.

[Epoletov___SPR]

There is an idea !
As WinSP allows to do fights with participation of several battalions from each party, I suggest to make possible purchase Batalion HQ (Headquarters).

Its feature - it can do Rally for subordinates Company of commanders and further Platoon commanders.

[Epoletov___SPR]

To increase cost VH even up to 999, now 250 points.

[deveen]

Hi all. Just to introduce myself, I've been playing (and enjoying) SP for awhile now, more WW2, but MBT as well. Thank you all involved in the development of the games.

I have a few comments/question about possible features to the game:

1. Engineer tanks/bulldozers - could it be made for these to be able to push destroyed vehicles from one hex to the next one? Many times a vehicle or a number of them get destroyed and block a road, for example. I've been reading here about limited time of the battle, but I don't mean this as a recovery operation, but rather as a real battle situation. So, for example, one tank gets destroyed, blocks a road, but behind him there is a dozer tank who just moves him over to the side. I believe even in real life this would take a short time to do.

2. Bridge layers - I've seen there was some talk about it, but haven't seen any conclusion. I have had many missions played in the terrain crossed with small streams (one hex) which can get your vehicle immobilized (unless you go over -1 fords; there are just few of these all over the length of the stream). It would be great if somehow bridge could be erected over these short spans.

3. Tank transport - what's the use for these? I've never used them in a game. Is it possible to transport an immobilized tank this way?

Just as a general comment, I prefer playing with breakdowns on, it's much more realistic, but I would enjoy it even more if the things mentioned above could be incorporated into the game. Once again, thanks to everyone developing this wonderful game.

[Marcello]

"1. Engineer tanks/bulldozers - could it be made for these to be able to push destroyed vehicles from one hex to the next one? Many times a vehicle or a number of them get destroyed and block a road, for example. I've been reading here about limited time of the battle, but I don't mean this as a recovery operation, but rather as a real battle situation. So, for example, one tank gets destroyed, blocks a road, but behind him there is a dozer tank who just moves him over to the side. I believe even in real life this would take a short time to do."

You can, if you want, give an engineer tank enough carry capacity
to load another tank. Any other way to implement this would be impossible or too difficult to be worth it.

"2. Bridge layers - I've seen there was some talk about it, but haven't seen any conclusion. I have had many missions played in the terrain crossed with small streams (one hex) which can get your vehicle immobilized (unless you go over -1 fords; there are just few of these all over the length of the stream). It would be great if somehow bridge could be erected over these short spans."

This has been discussed for years, even before these forums were created.Same answer as above.

"3. Tank transport - what's the use for these? I've never used them in a game. Is it possible to transport an immobilized tank this way?"

IIRC yes. What's the use for these? Well they exist in real life, so why not?

[Epoletov___SPR]

3. Tank transport - what's the use for these? I've never used them in a game. Is it possible to transport an immobilized tank this way?
You can transport the tank with crew inside.
I remember, what disappointment when the empty tank could not be taken away from a battlefield by this machine was. :re:

Well to correct this lack.

[deveen]

"1. Engineer tanks/bulldozers - could it be made for these to be able to push destroyed vehicles from one hex to the next one? Many times a vehicle or a number of them get destroyed and block a road, for example. I've been reading here about limited time of the battle, but I don't mean this as a recovery operation, but rather as a real battle situation. So, for example, one tank gets destroyed, blocks a road, but behind him there is a dozer tank who just moves him over to the side. I believe even in real life this would take a short time to do."

You can, if you want, give an engineer tank enough carry capacity
to load another tank. Any other way to implement this would be impossible or too difficult to be worth it.


Yeah, I understand that, but the thing with carry capacity wouldn't be possible for destroyed tanks, right? And I guess any other way would be too difficult... Too bad. Thanks for the answers.

[PanzerBob]

In regards to your removal of wreckage question, I believe it has been an issue of time frame and scope of the game. I'm sure if Engineering Vehicles were given to ability to move wrecks, next folks would want them to dig hull down positions etc.

Frankly in modern combat an ARV type vehicle would be an expensive and hard to replace asset to put into real harms way to open a road in the time frame our battles occur. These assets do that stuff later once the frontlines are far removed from the offending vehicle. I feel your pain brother! More than once has a bridge as a great example, had brewed up armour sitting on it slowing my race across to secure to other side. I've thought, " If only I could order someone to "push that junk off the bridge!" alla Col Hessler.

As for bridge layers, I do believe they could be cobbled together using barge carriers and barges, something which is in my long list of things to do. If I manage this I will post for sure. Again I believe the game scope has made it a non issue and besides if needed a bridge can be laid and regular stone bridge could double as such, MAYBE someone could add a bailey type bridge into the bridge types for building maps, that would make me happy. I have in the past used a rail bridge as a Bailey.

Tank Transporters, can be handy to move slow tanks to the battle area and move damaged ones to the rear. This might be useful especially in a campaign. Personally you’d need a large map and likely a scenario in the 40’s or 50’s to make these worthwhile because in a modern battlefield these would high value interdiction targets.

The other reason for their inclusion would be for scenario building. I suppose one could use this argument for the inclusion of bridge layers as well.

Man, I love this game!!!!:fight:

[Marek_Tucan]

One solution that might be feasible code-wise may be that the "engineering" points (mines, dragon teeth, tranches, barbed wire) might get to be used for say building a wooden bridge in your deployment area.

[Marcello]

Yeah, I understand that, but the thing with carry capacity wouldn't be possible for destroyed tanks, right? And I guess any other way would be too difficult... Too bad. Thanks for the answers.

Reading again I relized that I confused "destroyed" for "immobilized". Immobilized vehicles can be removed by any unit with sufficient carry capacity.
Removing destroyed vehicles has not been discussed, not to the same extent as some other topics at any rate. I am not sure that a burning 60 tons wreck, with the ammo going off and perhaps blocked tracks due to the heat playing tricks with the automotive components is something that can be just casually pushed around but then I have never been there and done that. You might try to ask on tanknet and see what they tell you.

In regards to bridge layers there is for example a neat GSP ferry icon, n.3228, which looks quite like a pontoon bridge although it would have to be used as a ferry (which is exactly what it is in real life anyway). Here is a drawing:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/st100-7/images/Image192.gif

[PanzerBob]

In regards to bridge layers there is for example a neat GSP ferry icon, n.3228, which looks quite like a pontoon bridge although it would have to be used as a ferry (which is exactly what it is in real life anyway). Here is a drawing:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/st100-7/images/Image192.gif

I must check that out thanks for the heads up.

Bob out :D

[thatguy96]

As for bridge layers, I do believe they could be cobbled together using barge carriers and barges, something which is in my long list of things to do.
This does not work, at least for bridging actual water hexes. I've tried it many times myself. A single water hex will be ringed with 6 "shore" hexes. While a barge can unload onto shore without moving into the shore hex, it must be actually on the shore hex to load the unit. Therefore the "bridge" requires at least 1 point of water movement. A craft in water without at least one point of water movement sinks anyhow, further compounding the problem. I'm not sure if the barge script allows the unloading of a unit into an adjacent hex when on a "land" hex of some sort (such as a stream or canal hex). However, it would not be able to load a vehicle unless it were in the same hex (I believe), which would also render the concept pointless. Lastly, to add in an AVLB "barge carrier," one would have to overwrite the default "barge" unit in the OOB with a bridge, removing the option to buy basic barges.

In short, I think we're stuck with barges and GSP-like items. Things like the GSP "ferry" bridge section exist in a number of armies, and are much more feasible than actual bridges.

[TLAM_Strike]

I was thinking about the larger sea going LSTs that can carry 10-15 MBTs and 600 troops and was wondering if there was any way to add that.

For example if a unit has a carry capacity of 450 it can carry 150 pts of units with no size restriction, 550 is 250 etc.

[thatguy96]

I was thinking about the larger sea going LSTs that can carry 10-15 MBTs and 600 troops and was wondering if there was any way to add that.

For example if a unit has a carry capacity of 450 it can carry 150 pts of units with no size restriction, 550 is 250 etc.
They'd also have to be about 3.5 hexes long ;) The carry capacity limit is hard coded, and I have to assume that if it was just a matter of setting it to a really high limit it would've been done by now. Maybe not. A little more carry capacity would be nice, but I don't see it happening.

[DRG]

[QUOTE=TLAM_Strike;635145]The carry capacity limit is hard coded, and I have to assume that if it was just a matter of setting it to a really high limit it would've been done by now. Maybe not. A little more carry capacity would be nice, but I don't see it happening.



You won't.

255 is the highest number you can enter for carry so anything with the capacity to carry a tank for example is limited to 55 carry points(255) Something that could carry light guns and men could be set to 199 and they would carry 99 points of men as would something with 99 carry. The first of the three numbers is the code to carry guns ( 1) or vehicles ( 2 )and once you get to the 2's you run into the maximum number ( 255 ) and that's why all the barges are usually 255

The only way to make that higher would be to tear the code apart and start over. Pretty much everything anymore is "tear the code apart and start over" becasue we've pretty much done everything else that doesn't involve tearing the code apart and starting over.IF we did decide to tear the code apart these games are dead becasue we wouldn't be using any SP code anymore and the restictions we are under becasue we are using SP code would disapear.

Andy and I discussed this years ago before the Windows upgrade and weighed the pros and cons. Had we decided to scrap the existing format we wouldn't be having this chat becasue there wouldn't be a winSPWW2 or a winSPMBT to wish it had this or that different and given the sheer number of hours it would take to rebuild a game to the same level we wouldn't be discussing that game either becasue we'd only be half way through development.

In a way a lot of this is interesting because the longer it goes on the more it looks like discussion forum wish lists after SP1 was released. :rolleyes:

The more things change the more they stay the same.;)

Don

`

[DRG]

The carry capacity limit is hard coded, and I have to assume that if it was just a matter of setting it to a really high limit it would've been done by now. Maybe not. A little more carry capacity would be nice, but I don't see it happening.



You won't.

255 is the highest number you can enter for carry so anything with the capacity to carry a tank for example is limited to 55 carry points(255) Something that could carry light guns and men could be set to 199 and they would carry 99 points of men as would something with 99 carry. The first of the three numbers is the code to carry guns ( 1) or vehicles ( 2 )and once you get to the 2's you run into the maximum number ( 255 ) and that's why all the barges are usually 255

The only way to make that higher would be to tear the code apart and start over. Pretty much everything anymore is "tear the code apart and start over" becasue we've pretty much done everything else that doesn't involve tearing the code apart and starting over.IF we did decide to tear the code apart these games are dead becasue we wouldn't be using any SP code anymore and the restictions we are under becasue we are using SP code would disapear.

Andy and I discussed this years ago before the Windows upgrade and weighed the pros and cons. Had we decided to scrap the existing format we wouldn't be having this chat becasue there wouldn't be a winSPWW2 or a winSPMBT to wish it had this or that different and given the sheer number of hours it would take to rebuild a game to the same level we wouldn't be discussing that game either becasue we'd only be half way through development.

In a way a lot of this is interesting because the longer it goes on the more it looks like discussion forum wish lists after SP1 was released. :rolleyes:

The more things change the more they stay the same.;)

Don

`

[PanzerBob]

Thanks all, for that info. Just saved me a lot of time trying to create something that will not work.

As for the LST notion, I have in the past created maps with small islands to serve as LSV,LSD's etc for the troops landing. It took some playing around but I got it to work and it made for some interesting battles. It gave the AI something to target beside the LC's themselves and generated more causalities "at sea" than with just the Landing Craft. Just make sure they are just beyond visual range from the guns on the beach. If anybodies interested we discuss this further.

Bob out :capt:

[thatguy96]

Thanks all, for that info. Just saved me a lot of time trying to create something that will not work.
I wish it would, but there are some things that are unfortunately just not feasible under the current game engine, and we're generally clear on that not changing. I tried the bridge thing along with the so-called "Airmobile Artillery Platform." Turns out you can't unload from helicopters onto water hexes, so that sort of killed that too.

[deveen]

A single water hex will be ringed with 6 "shore" hexes. While a barge can unload onto shore without moving into the shore hex, it must be actually on the shore hex to load the unit. Therefore the "bridge" requires at least 1 point of water movement. A craft in water without at least one point of water movement sinks anyhow, further compounding the problem.

What about streams/fords? Have you tried that?

[thatguy96]

A single water hex will be ringed with 6 "shore" hexes. While a barge can unload onto shore without moving into the shore hex, it must be actually on the shore hex to load the unit. Therefore the "bridge" requires at least 1 point of water movement. A craft in water without at least one point of water movement sinks anyhow, further compounding the problem.

What about streams/fords? Have you tried that?

From the same post ;) :

I'm not sure if the barge script allows the unloading of a unit into an adjacent hex when on a "land" hex of some sort (such as a stream or canal hex). However, it would not be able to load a vehicle unless it were in the same hex (I believe), which would also render the concept pointless.

[deveen]

Oh, sorry, missed that.

[Marek_Tucan]

Just an idle thought that occured to me when driving through our villages... What about changing wooden buildings a bit so that they can be partially transparent (visibility block similar to trees) and they may be carefully navigated with vehicles (say as when crossing the ford or stream) without being destroyed?

[Epoletov___SPR]

Please make armies with dogs !
They should find out well the opponent nearby. :up:
And also dogs-mines and so on.

[Koh]

I'm sure Sgt. Cujo and his subordinates would be great at following orders. Or even understanding what the heck is going on around them.

[Marek_Tucan]

You may try simulating doghandlers by adding scouts with +1 vision or something such.

[BadCompany]

I haven't read through all of this thread, but:

Suspension Damage!

Hedges and stone walls!(Well just have bocage in the games now)

Add these to things and the games would be absolutely perfect.

[Warwick]

Surely we already have suspension damage: i.e. mobility kills
damage point 1. You can also mobhack this if you so desire, see
WinSPWW2 scen 9th SS in Hungary. Or am I missing something ?

Regards, Warwick

[PlasmaKrab]

I haven't read through all of this thread, but:

Suspension Damage!

Hedges and stone walls!(Well just have bocage in the games now)

Add these to things and the games would be absolutely perfect.As Warwick said, hedge mobility damage are here already. Just try running a tank full steam into a hedgerow and see what happens... I don't know how far this goes back to in game versions, but I have noticed in V3.5 IIRC that you could get the same effect with rough slopes as well.
And the devs have been saying over and over that stone walls were a no-go, so just use hedges all over the place.

[Epoletov___SPR]

Can be make from WinSPWW2 a simulator of two world wars ?!
That is with 1914 for 1945.

[RichP]

Can be make from WinSPWW2 a simulator of two world wars ?!
That is with 1914 for 1945.

Now that is an idea I would get behind. SPWW1 would be brilliant, if it were possible. There is nothing out there which tactically simulates the mobile battles off WWI (Marne, Mons, Le Cateau,1918 campaigns early phase of Verdun etc). Maybe with a little stretch it could cover the RJW as well ;)

[DRG]

There was a third party mod for WW1 that was being worked on sporadically using the DOS version. When we released the windows version we ended the practice of allowing the dates back to 1914 because it didn't fit our OOB's and we were now going to offer the game commercially. We made the offer to create a special EXE just for WW1 but nobody working on that mod responded and we totally lost what little interest we had in it.

WW1 was NOT WW2 and simply renaming things and leaving the code alone would not have made a very good game.

Every year somebody pops up asking about WW1 but the interest in it is literally a inch deep and a yard wide.

Don

[RichP]

Fair points. I appreciate that it would be far more difficult than adding a few bits here and there. Its a shame the WW1 mod died a death, I guess I must be one of those few strange characters wanting to play the era! ;)

[Marcello]

As a purely aesthetical improvement I was thinking about a wider range of artillery guns icons. The existing stock does not make justice to a lot of guns.
If somebody was willing to do some work on this and make it available for an official release it would be great.

[cyberdisc]

Probably the only thing that I miss from SPWAW is ability to record in a file the combat results (alt-L key).
Is it a code problem or is it something else?(Ex. removed to add a kind of FoW)

bye
cd

[Marek_Tucan]

Idea: counterbattery as assignment (both for artillery and aircrafts).

[troopie]

Idea: counterbattery as assignment (both for artillery and aircrafts).

Good idea. And a paracommando unit class.

troopie

[Marek_Tucan]

Good idea. And a paracommando unit class.


I'd rather like offboard SAM first, am not a spec ops kind ;)

But now seriously, I have fdorgotten answer already, so... Would it be possible to have a "beaten zone" effect for HMG's and MMG's wherever they're mounted? Mening mostly forts, as they are now quite weak re. causing suppression, compared to normal MG units.

[Mobhack]

Good idea. And a paracommando unit class.


I'd rather like offboard SAM first, am not a spec ops kind ;)

But now seriously, I have fdorgotten answer already, so... Would it be possible to have a "beaten zone" effect for HMG's and MMG's wherever they're mounted? Mening mostly forts, as they are now quite weak re. causing suppression, compared to normal MG units.

Fort class (And bunker class in WW2) now generates blast circle for MG type weapons (Type=3 and wh=1). (5 minute fix :)). 1 MG unit class was also missing from the filter in MBT - added.

MBT - the AGL class was not generating a blast circle. Bug! :hurt:. Fixed.
Also - with a little tricky code the engine now determines if a class 3 weapon is an AGL, and generates a blast circle for these. So a Land Rover WMIK with GMG or BTR80+AGS is somewhat more effective!.

Andy

[JohnHale]

MBT - the AGL class was not generating a blast circle. Bug! :hurt:. Fixed.

Andy


Good show - up to now they have been pretty useless: less use than a 2in Mortar!

[Marek_Tucan]

Thanks very much, Andy!
Fast feedback (be it positive, as in this case, or negative, with many uncodable wild ideas) by developpers is one of the things I appreciate the most with WinSPMBT/SPWW2 (apart from it being a really great game). Thanks once again.

[Epoletov___SPR]

For campaigns PBEM and Human vs Computer.

Abandoned enemy technics and grasped by the opponent to add to the Core force.

[Epoletov___SPR]

To make so that abandoned vechicles were evacuated in tank transporter.

[mosborne]

Hi:
Just want to toss this out again.

How about adding in a video feature. I can think of at least 3 ways, probably from easiest to hardest.

a) Concatenate the playback from each players turn.
b) Record the script for each unit action and results, then provide it at the end of the game. May require a standalone player to play the scrip, although I think the core of the player can be stripped from the game.
b) Like, "b", but record keystrokes also in the sequence. Thus you can see things like switching guns off, artillery assignments by which FO, etc.

Option (a) is probably the easiest, since I think all that is needed is to pipe the replay to a separate file for playing and extend it after each turn. This will make a nice game playback, although a bit choppy. Probably 3rd party software to do this, since it is simply a fancy screen capture (video pipe).

Option (b) is probably the happy middle ground. Downside, most likely will require recompile of the engine unless it has a debug feature that already permits this. Also, have to hold final generation until game ends to avoid cheating. Good points - much smoother battle replay, good for training sessions, and good for discouraging any most cheating.

Option (c) Slightly more complicated than (b), but would be the ultimate in training and the ultimate in cheat detection.

Please comment.
Thanks

[Imp]

How about adding in a video feature.
Option (c) Slightly more complicated than (b), but would be the ultimate in training and the ultimate in cheat detection


I am guessing a lot of work for a feature that does not realy add anything.
Using for cheat detection esp if shows averything as per C could go on for ages.
Big game 15 min replay for first 10 or so turns till units dwindle that would be over 3 hours for a 20 turn game.
Big replays take over 10mins just seeing engaged units & thats with fast arty on

[mosborne]

Can't argue about the value, that is too subjective.

The cheating part is more of a side-effect, but would/could be a discourager against those seeking to looking to cheat if there is an audit trail.

As for length of time, actually the video should be less than the game if using time compression.

I still like the training and other multimedia options that come to mind.

Feel free to toss in the burn bag. I think for those who are really interested in pursuing, there are a lot of free video capture programs. So just need two agreeable people with the ability to cut and splice digital video to do this manually.

[Imp]

Feel free to toss in the burn bag. I think for those who are really interested in pursuing, there are a lot of free video capture programs.


Was not wishing to sound dismisive putting forward ideas is in my view not a bad thing its more of a priority thing. Things that make a diffrence to improve gameplay take priority. The more sweeping the improvement the more important generaly.
Only so many hours in the day blah blah

[Epoletov___SPR]

Many times we (fans WinSP) are asked by a question...
Why from falling (it is destroyed by air defence) fighter-bomber does not jump out crew? :angel

It probably to make in WinSP ? :re:

[Mobhack]

Many times we (fans WinSP) are asked by a question...
Why from falling (it is destroyed by air defence) fighter-bomber does not jump out crew? :angel

It probably to make in WinSP ? :re:

What exactly would be the point for fighter-bombers, since there is nothing to re-crew (damaged planes return to base) and no core unit for the experience to be carried forwards by survivors in a campaign?.

Helos would be the only one from a campaign point of view that might benefit from crew bail out (they can be in the core) - but crashing helos kill all on board anyway. Helicopter crashes in reality tend to be pretty much 100% fatal.

Cheers
Andy

[RERomine]

Helos would be the only one from a campaign point of view that might benefit from crew bail out (they can be in the core) - but crashing helos kill all on board anyway. Helicopter crashes in reality tend to be pretty much 100% fatal.

Cheers
Andy

What if they get popped while landed?

[Mobhack]

Helos would be the only one from a campaign point of view that might benefit from crew bail out (they can be in the core) - but crashing helos kill all on board anyway. Helicopter crashes in reality tend to be pretty much 100% fatal.

Cheers
Andy

What if they get popped while landed?

In the SP universe, they explode in a ball of flames. No survivors. It comes from the unit class. Planes and helos do not have splittable crews, nor do offmap arty, boats etc.

Andy

[DRG]

...and we have no intention of tearing apart the code to change that

Don

[RERomine]

Wasn't planning on asking. It would be a niche change that wouldn't buy much. Helos aren't on the ground much in the game, anyhow.

[Epoletov___SPR]

Even skilled players in " Steel panthers " often do not watch for height in hex (and in lowland there can be an ambush).
It would be useful to show height different color or in figure in everyone hex-es.

====================================
In campaign against computer-player, after destruction of yours commander-unit (index A0; B0;...) in the following battle its powers are received by another unit.
Badly that this new commander-unit with index " A1; B2;.... ". The mess when it is necessary to understand who now commander-unit turns out. It is necessary to write out on its piece of paper index, that is inconvenient.

[Suhiir]

Ya know, something I haven't tried yet...
With the new code to split off vehicle and gun crews when you load them into aircraft can you load a helo and split it's crew off?

[gila]

Ya know, something I haven't tried yet...
With the new code to split off vehicle and gun crews when you load them into aircraft can you load a helo and split it's crew off?

It's automatic with guns and vehicles they will be split now when air dropped from fixed wing transport unless gliders (WW2) not sure if the same with heavy helo's.

[PlasmaKrab]

Ya know, something I haven't tried yet...
With the new code to split off vehicle and gun crews when you load them into aircraft can you load a helo and split it's crew off?
Not sure if this is applicable with all heavy helos, depending on whether you carry the vehicle on a sling or in the cargo bay.
AFAIK the Mi-6 and Mi-26 can load BMDs in full combat gear (at least road-ready) so they can roll off the rear ramp as if from a glider.
Now the sling transport is another matter, but differentiating between the two modes would require new data in the "carry capacity" field. Also the 'sling' restriction should apply on towed weapons as well, though the recompletion time is much less than on vehicles.
(anything first-hand on this, Suhiir?)

Putting it like this, I'm pretty sure you can sling a vehicle in running condition (minus crew), which would require a handful of minutes to drive away, as opposed to drop-packaged vehicles which are generally, cleaned out, drained from fuel and lubricant, palletized and wrapped in cardboard or something.
Also helicopters don't separate vehicle from crew during the landing as both are dropped in the same hex. You lose half the fun of the concept.

So in the end, not sure the crews separation should apply.

[PlasmaKrab]

Apart from crew bailout :D another thing that IMHO could be improved in SPMBT aircraft is the engagement range.
Most non-bomb class 11 weapons I can think of have a two-figure range, yet I don't remember seeing aircraft starting strafing runs more than 5-6 hexes away.

On the other hand I vaguely remember reading about Soviet pilots in Afghanistan who were so afraid if Mujahedeen air defenses that they started their strafing runs some 2kms from target, their rocket salvoes being expectedly useless.

Is their any way to extend the initial firing range, maybe based on aircraft vision/FC/RF ratings?
Even better, making the start range invert-proportional to pilot morale and experience. The greener and more frightened the pilot, the more he will tend to blaze away early instead of keeping his ammo for better opportunities farther downrange.

[Suhiir]

Actually what I was thinking was uncrewed helos on a runway and having to run the crews from a flight ops building to the helos before they can be used.

Also you could do a scenario where you had to recover a downed helo - happened a "few" times in Nam.

[PlasmaKrab]

Hey Suhiir,

So I got it completely wrong.

I get the idea now, it could be intersting for rescue missions, though you can simulate a helo to be rescued by setting its move ability to 0 and reduce weight so it can be carried away. Mind you, a helo with 0 speed will still attempt "evasive maneuvers" when targeted, don't ask me how exactly.

I ran a couple of experiments, and helicopters and crew bailout don't mix well:

-Hitting @ with a helo selected lands it, no more move for the turn, no crew coming out, it is ready to go next turn as if it was landed as usual.

-Tried to airdrop helos to force crew bailout, doesn't work. The helo lands apparently like an infantry unit ('unit lands' message, no damage as far as I have seen) and is then fit to go immediately. For some reason the altitude check goes away after landing, but it doesn't prevent the helo from moving, apparently with its original move class.
Again, you will have to edit the helo weight in the scenario editor with 'D' to try this.

If someone gets different results please reply, but for now if you want to be able to uncrew helos, something needs to be modified in the game.

Come to think of it, there are a couple of additions I think would be interesting in this regard:

-The ability to bail out crews during deploy phase of scenarios.

-And optionally the ability ot destroy abandoned vehicles so they cannot be reoccupied.

[Imp]

And optionally the ability ot destroy abandoned vehicles so they cannot be reoccupied

Just end your turn with a foot unit in the hex & it will destroy it.

[Marek_Tucan]

Just a lazy thought... Vehicle toughnes... Would it be possible to work like inf. toughness? IOW not by multiplying the armor values, but by making the tank more likely to survive hits, producing say more "no effect" or minor damage /*, immobilisations etc) instead of outright kills?

[DRG]

The problem is, survivabilty, which is the factor that would be used for what you suggest, is very limited. You have zero to Six and that's it without really starting to tear into the bedrock of the game

Don

[Marek_Tucan]

Yep, I know, and IIRC either you and Andy wrote some time back the dice roll generators are fairly limited as well... Well, was just an idea. Will crawl back under my stone to the map I am working on :)

[Epoletov___SPR]

It is necessary to add in " Map extended editor " hot keys.
First of all for " Fill Area with Current terrain ".
Would be very conveniently, easily and to do quickly Map.:up:


Perhaps, to reduce the basic screen.
And sideways or above the basic screen to place all buttons
(it is not so convenient to use button " Go to the next editor button page ").

[cyberdisc]

This would be a nice feature (IMHO):
- enable to print on file the combat results (like spwaw).

bye
cd

[Imp]

If you need it for some reason can just take a screen shot.

[cyberdisc]

If you need it for some reason can just take a screen shot.

In a screenshot you get only one result.
With in a file you will get ALL results in a given turn (IIRC): very useful, I guess (but I don't know how difficolt will be implement this feature).

[Imp]

If you need it for some reason can just take a screen shot.

In a screenshot you get only one result.
With in a file you will get ALL results in a given turn (IIRC): very useful, I guess (but I don't know how difficolt will be implement this feature).

Think I missunderstood you, was thinking end of battle screen but think you aes talking about a log of all combat results.

[cyberdisc]

Think I missunderstood you, was thinking end of battle screen but think you aes talking about a log of all combat results.

exactly

[Epoletov___SPR]

It is necessary to change color terrain "Short Grass".

Now this color mismatches the realities.

[Warwick]

When playing a campaign with multiple artillery batteries of similar calibre, would it be possible when one of them fires counter-battery to know which one is firing? This would be useful for deciding which ones need more experience. Or could this be seen as too much info?

Thanks, Warwick

[whdonnelly]

Have you tried keeping an eye on rounds fired? That may be the quickest way.
Will

[Mobhack]

When playing a campaign with multiple artillery batteries of similar calibre, would it be possible when one of them fires counter-battery to know which one is firing? This would be useful for deciding which ones need more experience. Or could this be seen as too much info?

Thanks, Warwick

If it is important to you, then just rename each of your batteries. e.g. 25 pounder troop 01, 02 etc ...

Simples!*

Cheers
Andy

*http://www.comparethemeerkat.com/home (for the meerkat challenged :))

[Imp]

No need to bother really the guy with the most experince is most likely to fire, below 75 maybe 70 little chance over 80 & hes on the ball. If really fussed its arty skill will determine casulties, the higher the better.

[DRG]

It is necessary to change color terrain "Short Grass".

Now this color mismatches the realities.


It's a alternate to regular grass. If you don't like it don't use it *I* think it looks fine and therefore will be staying as is.

Don

[Epoletov___SPR]

It is color of a faded grass, in fact so ?! ;)




http://i454.photobucket.com/albums/qq261/Epoletov/Grass.jpg

[Imp]

Sort of the colour it goes in an arid country then, if it gets much hotter it gives up & dies so use it for dry areas or just to break up the terrain a bit.

[Lt. Ketch]

Sort of the colour it goes in an arid country then, if it gets much hotter it gives up & dies so use it for dry areas or just to break up the terrain a bit.

That looks like the grass in my yard when there's a drought. (I live in the American west). Generally, the shorter the grass, the less likely it is to survive. This is due the the fact (as I understand it) that grass' roots are as long as their blades, so it takes more work to keep grass green when it's short.

[Epoletov___SPR]

Extended Map Editor.


It is now very convenient to make all over again roads, then to fill space with a wood.
Roads thus are not destroyed.

Would be conveniently same to make for another terrain.
Necessarily for Grass, Wheat, Field.

[DRG]

That's becasue trees are handled somewhat differently in the code than fields are .

Don

[Epoletov___SPR]

In Editor scenarios the button " Entrench one unit " is necessary.

I create scenarios where the part of armies should not be dug in, but now it cannot be made.

[DRG]

So why not add a one hex section of trench ????

Don

[Epoletov___SPR]

It is visible to a trench from the beginning of battle.
It target â„–1 for artillery of the opponent.

Are necessary " fox hole " for infantry and analogue for vechicle.
These positions are camouflaged before contact to the enemy. :up:

[iCaMpWiThAWP]

IIRC, there was some way to place "invisible" trenches in the old versions, doesn't seems possible anymore

[wulfir]

It is visible to a trench from the beginning of battle.
It target â„–1 for artillery of the opponent.

Are necessary " fox hole " for infantry and analogue for vechicle.
These positions are camouflaged before contact to the enemy. :up:



Buy units to entrench. Place them on map. Entrench all.
Buy units not to entrench. Place them on map. Save.

And there you go. ;)

[Epoletov___SPR]

It is very grateful, Wulfir, for your advice! :up:

[EpoletovSPR]

Probably this problem has been told by other comrades.

It is not visible where fall bomblets round at viewing turn the opponent.

[DRG]

Probably this problem has been told by other comrades.

It is not visible where fall bomblets round at viewing turn the opponent.

Yes, this has been reported before and the answer is the entire cluster munitions routine is a variation of the fast arty code and you don't see cluster replays for the same reason you don't see fast arty replays in PBEM

It *may* be something that can be adjusted becasue the graphics routine is the same as regular arty just with different SHP files but it's the code that records and decides if hits are made that is the problem for the reasons cited above .

It is for certain any investigation of this won't be until later in the year, not this next release.

Don

[EpoletovSPR]

Now tank riders are not visible for observers.
Not clearly there is someone on vechicle or not.

Well that as earlier this information was accessible in " inform window ", press button "I".

[Imp]

This was changed a few patches back so riders/passengers are not vissible to the other player. Reasoning behind it far more units ride in vehicles than on them so you would not know if its full or empty let alone the unit type in it so lesser of the 2 evils.

[Suhiir]

I have a suggestion...that will hopefully require very minor/easy code tweaks if implemented.

As it stands now "Air Op Aircraft" (Unit Class 50) are all treated the same.

While the smaller size, and usually higher EW rating, of UAV's generally makes them hard to hit...the requirement for an artificially high (and purely guesstimate) EW rating makes them expensive cost wise.

I've looked over the OOBs and many of the non-UAV "Air OP Aircraft" are speed 2.

Would it be possible to make:
Unit Class 50
Speed 1
EW 0
not trigger fire by SAM's ?

Area SAM - Unit Class 16
Infantry SAM - Unit Class 29
SP SAM - Unit Class 30

Valuable, and scarce, missiles wouldn't be wasted on a UAV in reality.
And the "gamey" tactic of having a UAV make a pass or two forcing an opponent (AI or player) to waste their SAMs on it would be eliminated.

Now, I'm not sure what, if any, effect EW rating has on regular AA (AAG, AAMG, etc.) fire so perhaps the EW 0 won't work for one of the code triggers not to fire SAMs. If not will UC=50, Spd=1 be sufficient?

Discussion?

[Imp]

Speed effects all AAA fire at as far as I know the faster it goes the longer the gap between shots at.

[EpoletovSPR]

This was changed a few patches back so riders/passengers are not vissible to the other player. Reasoning behind it far more units ride in vehicles than on them so you would not know if its full or empty let alone the unit type in it so lesser of the 2 evils.

Yes, I agree and I know about it.

There is a hope what probably to divide riders and passengers (inside vechicle).

It would add realism.

If it is inconvenient, certainly it is better to choose smaller from two harms.

[Suhiir]

Speed effects all AAA fire at as far as I know the faster it goes the longer the gap between shots at.

Actually I was wondering what (if any) effects EW rating had on AAA.
If the slower speed of UAV allows them to be shot at more frequently I think it's pretty well offset by their size.
True, this holds for missiles as well, but the point is to not allow game mechanics to allow you to sucker an opponent into wasting their expensive SAMs on UAVs.

[iCaMpWiThAWP]

Speed effects all AAA fire at as far as I know the faster it goes the longer the gap between shots at.

Actually I was wondering what (if any) effects EW rating had on AAA.
If the slower speed of UAV allows them to be shot at more frequently I think it's pretty well offset by their size.
True, this holds for missiles as well, but the point is to not allow game mechanics to allow you to sucker an opponent into wasting their expensive SAMs on UAVs.
Maybe no aamg fire aswell, it's probably kinda hard to hit such a small thing like an UAV.

[Suhiir]

Speed effects all AAA fire at as far as I know the faster it goes the longer the gap between shots at.

Actually I was wondering what (if any) effects EW rating had on AAA.
If the slower speed of UAV allows them to be shot at more frequently I think it's pretty well offset by their size.
True, this holds for missiles as well, but the point is to not allow game mechanics to allow you to sucker an opponent into wasting their expensive SAMs on UAVs.
Maybe no aamg fire aswell, it's probably kinda hard to hit such a small thing like an UAV.

True, but their size will take care of that.
I just want SAMs not to be wasted on them.
I'd think they'd be easier to hit with an AAMG then a SAM actually...not that it'd be easy.

[Imp]

True, but their size will take care of that.
I just want SAMs not to be wasted on them.
I'd think they'd be easier to hit with an AAMG then a SAM actually...not that it'd be easy


See what you are saying probably the easiest thing would be a rule, change EW to 90 plus the original EW so EW 2 becomes 92.
Could then restrict SAMs so dont target while allowing guns possibly MANPADS to as normal, rational for MANPADS not radar so visibility normaly restricts range.

When the new patch comes out as your OOBs nearly done would you fancy a PBEM game happy to use any side using sensible buy vs USMC, happy with house rules if you want to try & create a specific situation.

[EpoletovSPR]

Coming back to an old theme.

"SP Camo" owns the rights on "SP3 Brigade Command".


If yes, it would be desirable to receive excellent "Command control" (management by means of Orders point) in winSP. :up:

[DRG]

........and coming back to our old well established theme


1/"SP Camo" does not "own the rights" to SP3 Brigade Command.

2/Both Andy and I disliked SP3 Brigade Command and have said so many times on this forum and elsewhere

3/The dislike of that game INCLUDES it's C&C system.





Don

[Lt. Ketch]

Maybe no aamg fire aswell, it's probably kinda hard to hit such a small thing like an UAV.

Some of those UAVs can be quite large. My father-in-law works at the local air base and the ones he sees are the ones that have a larger wingpan than an F-16. I also found this link - http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2010/02/iafs-new-uav-size-of-passenger-jet-20.html. The title expalains it.

Now there are mico UAVs as well that may be only a couple of feet long/wide. I'm curious what the percentages on usage are. In any event, I think the AAMG fire should stay as well. Cutting the SAM makes sense to me.

[Mobhack]

Maybe no aamg fire aswell, it's probably kinda hard to hit such a small thing like an UAV.

Some of those UAVs can be quite large. My father-in-law works at the local air base and the ones he sees are the ones that have a larger wingpan than an F-16. I also found this link - http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2010/02/iafs-new-uav-size-of-passenger-jet-20.html. The title expalains it.

Now there are mico UAVs as well that may be only a couple of feet long/wide. I'm curious what the percentages on usage are. In any event, I think the AAMG fire should stay as well. Cutting the SAM makes sense to me.

They are aircraft, the game fires at planes of all types if in range and the %age chance to hit is OK.

There will be no such changes, simply to avoid the "bug reports" that end users would fill the forum with, complaining that their AAA let spotter planes (which is all a "UAV" is) fly unhindered over their forces.

Andy

[Suhiir]

True, but their size will take care of that.
I just want SAMs not to be wasted on them.
I'd think they'd be easier to hit with an AAMG then a SAM actually...not that it'd be easy


See what you are saying probably the easiest thing would be a rule, change EW to 90 plus the original EW so EW 2 becomes 92.
Could then restrict SAMs so dont target while allowing guns possibly MANPADS to as normal, rational for MANPADS not radar so visibility normaly restricts range.

When the new patch comes out as your OOBs nearly done would you fancy a PBEM game happy to use any side using sensible buy vs USMC, happy with house rules if you want to try & create a specific situation.

Actually the 90+ EW rating idea is probably the best, that way there's no problem with existing slow fixed-wing observation aircraft yet UAVs could be made not to trigger SAMs.
But...Mobhack has spoken (see post above this one)...ahhh well...nice idea anyway.

Actually I'm working on a couple scenarios with my revised USMC OOB:

USMC vs Iraq/Taliban/Iran (2016)
5 scenario mini-campaign

USMC vs China (probably 2018-20's)
China invades Taiwan with lighter (airborne, airmobile, hovercraft delivered, etc.) assuming they can present a feint accompli. A MEU from Okinawa is the closest ground unit available.

Now I haven't done much more then brainstorm on the USMC vs China scenario.
The intent is to make it a looong scenario...like 90 turns in two parts.
Part one - Chinese forces attack the MEU and presumably get beaten off
Part two - USMC counter-attack to destroy not only the Chinese attack force but the reserve and rear-area forces.

I'm thinking I'll have to go thru and change the move speed of any Chinese defensive units to zero to keep the AI from using them during the attack.

But the real question is...
Just what sort Chinese force will make the scenario challenging?
So if you want to come up with a set of Chinese forces for this I'd be overjoyed to play!

[Imp]

But the real question is...
Just what sort Chinese force will make the scenario challenging?
So if you want to come up with a set of Chinese forces for this I'd be overjoyed to play!

The Chinese have recently spent a lot on landing ships etc & their marines so perhaps marine vs marine. Chinese Marines from memory have an AFV similar to BMP-3 & a Amphib light tank based on it, obviously as Marines most would not have the aformentioned. While not in the game also believe they have an amphib version of SPSAM AA gun combo though for what you suggest probably still mainly MANPADS for AAA. Also seem to remember they have several light tanks APCs IFVs to choose from for follow on force. Also have a good range of light mortars etc till main arty can be landed. Biggest failing is probably air there EW suites are not very good on the whole & AAA overall lags behind the main players so USMC could have a bit of fun if area stuff is not in place. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Suhiir]

But the real question is...
Just what sort Chinese force will make the scenario challenging?
So if you want to come up with a set of Chinese forces for this I'd be overjoyed to play!

The Chinese have recently spent a lot on landing ships etc & their marines so perhaps marine vs marine. Chinese Marines from memory have an AFV similar to BMP-3 & a Amphib light tank based on it, obviously as Marines most would not have the aformentioned. While not in the game also believe they have an amphib version of SPSAM AA gun combo though for what you suggest probably still mainly MANPADS for AAA. Also seem to remember they have several light tanks APCs IFVs to choose from for follow on force. Also have a good range of light mortars etc till main arty can be landed. Biggest failing is probably air there EW suites are not very good on the whole & AAA overall lags behind the main players so USMC could have a bit of fun if area stuff is not in place. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

I think we can assume land-based USAF from Japan and Okinawa plus the US carrier task group that WOULD be covering the USMC landing will pretty well nullify any Chinese air threat, so I think we can limit Chinese air to say 2 "flights" of 4-6 (whatever size the typical Chinese "flight" is) strike (i.e. not first-line) aircraft. One "flight" available for the initial Chinese attack, the second say turn 25-30ish OR possibility 10ish with say a 10-20% chance to arrive per turn so a player will have to choose to wait for them all or use them piecemeal. The USMC will have only the 6 aircraft normally inherent to a MEU. Given that Marine Air are VTOL and a MEU has the assets to refuel/rearm make 6 aircraft available turn 1, 4 on turn 30, 2 on turn 60 representing rearmed aircraft.

As to Chinese artillery, I think we can assume their initial attack brought in artillery, armor, etc...just limited numbers. The Chinese are not stupid, so their initial landing would be heavy on logistics, knowing that resupply will be difficult after the initial assault. But some first-rate heavier stuff would be included in the first assault.


LOTS of Chinese area SAMs, brought in on the initial assault to counter US air. These SAMs are the main USMC objective in the Chinese rear, but will NOT have any missiles for the sake of the scenario. The Chinese don't want to "waste" area SAMs on tactical air strikes, their lighter stuff can deal with it!

Other thoughts?

Don/Andy...could you maybe move the last couple posts between me and Imp to the PBEM forum?
Thanks!

[Imp]

This sort of stuff probably better worked out by email or PM feel free to do either esp if looking at releasing as a scenerio.
On Chinese planes the idea of remains arriving piecemeal is good if there were actually any left, they would have probably tried stopping the fleet or hitting landings.
SAMs as objectives therefore a good idea perhaps give Chinese helos rather than fast air as reinforcements & used in landings, still piecemeal arrival & transports could be loaded . Marine Mech formation light tanks & or MBT could also turn up as reinforcements in a more organised maner, assuming taken the ground but not had time to consolidate positions before USMC turn up.

[Suhiir]

This sort of stuff probably better worked out by email or PM feel free to do either esp if looking at releasing as a scenerio.
On Chinese planes the idea of remains arriving piecemeal is good if there were actually any left, they would have probably tried stopping the fleet or hitting landings.
SAMs as objectives therefore a good idea perhaps give Chinese helos rather than fast air as reinforcements & used in landings, still piecemeal arrival & transports could be loaded . Marine Mech formation light tanks & or MBT could also turn up as reinforcements in a more organised maner, assuming taken the ground but not had time to consolidate positions before USMC turn up.

Moved to PMs.

[rfisher]

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.