Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !

[Imp]

There were lots of great games, problem was space especially if playing friends over a few weeks.

[Suhiir]

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

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

[rel19]

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

[whdonnelly]

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

[Mobhack]

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

[zovs66]

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

Just my thoughts and opinions.

[Aeraaa]

Originally Posted by zovs66

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

Just my thoughts and opinions.

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

[MarkSheppard]

My biggest suggestion is to improve the map-maker.

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

This is intended to improve VENHOLA map imports.

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

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

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

[DRG]

The map maker is already LIGHT YEARS ahead of any other SP based game but apparently, we just can't do enough to make everyone happy... but really... in what reality is everyone happy ??

However. For water maps ( 2019 addition )

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

[MarkSheppard]

Don, I know about the " key for 2019 CD edition.

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

But when you select MAP GENERATOR and try:

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

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

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