Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !

Randy · #1 March 29th, 2008, 03:03 AM

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 · #2 March 29th, 2008, 03:44 AM

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 · #3 March 29th, 2008, 12:47 PM

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 · #4 April 18th, 2008, 10:14 AM

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 · #5 April 18th, 2008, 01:25 PM

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

thatguy96 · #6 April 18th, 2008, 03:01 PM

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

Marek_Tucan · #7 April 18th, 2008, 04:08 PM

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 · #8 April 18th, 2008, 05:36 PM

Quote:

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?

RecruitMonty · #9 April 27th, 2008, 12:40 PM

,,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 · #10 April 27th, 2008, 01:59 PM

Quote:

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.