Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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).

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

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

Was denn?

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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

I do not want personal mail.

Don

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

Oh, sorry, forget that last bit.

Sorry about that Don. I forgot.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

2: Recruit Monty: Thanks for the offered help !

Has written to you in PM.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

Has written to you in PM.

Translation of ideas will be soon published.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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.

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

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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

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.

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)

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

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

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).
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...).

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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...

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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.



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.

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




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

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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

Some answers and opinions of my own;


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.


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.


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?

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.


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.

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.

Which means what? Even more accuracy to artillery fire?

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

Not feasible unfortunately.


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.

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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

"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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

**********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.


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

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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).

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...

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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

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.


You probably did not meet their massed and skilful use in fight. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/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. [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Cold.gif[/img]


It is necessary to increase cost Armed transport helicopters.


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.

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 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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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.



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.


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?

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.


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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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.

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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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).

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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)...

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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?

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

"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-c...ads/feat07.jpe

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/26864...30FDCFC4C15FBB

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

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/image...es/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 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.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
 

"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.