Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !

[Marek_Tucan]

Okay, my opinions and comments Rather academical in most places as they do concern things that would be very hard, if not impossible to change

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

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

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 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 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

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...

[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.