long campaign - most wanted

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

long campaign - most wanted

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> long campaign - most wanted

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

long campaign - most wanted - 7/22/2000 4:30:00 PM

headhunter

Posts: 81
Joined: 5/8/2000
Status: offline

There are some improvements I would like to see for the SPWAW long campaign: 1) A limit as to how many units of each type are avaiable for core force composition / campaign replacements. There should be a "rarity value" for each unit, (e.g. making a PzVIe harder to aquire/replace than a PzIV). 2) Additionally, avaiability could be modified by a "global avaiability value" (GAV) for each country. This GAV would change over the course of the campaign. Some possibilities how the GAV could be calculated: a) taken from a table which mirrors the historical situation (e.g. Germany: declining in the later war years) b) determined by success or failure of the player c) a combination of a) and b) While 1) and 2a) would increase the realism, 2b) or 2c) would give the player the feeling that he has an influence on the course of war making the experience more rewarding. 3) The possibility to add/remove units to/from the core force over the course of a campaign at will. For example, this would allow the player to start with foot infantry and motorize it later in the game. Or a successful player could simply enlarge his core force, representing the increased trust placed in him by his superiors. 1) and 2) shouldn't be too difficult to implement. But I don't know how the source for SPWAW really looks like, so perhaps there are some difficulties I can't imagine. And yes, I understand that you Matrixgames guys can't go on adding features to SPWAW forever. Probably there is no room for this in v3, but perhaps you could consider these improvements for an upgrade in a more distant future. Thanks !

_____________________________

Post #: 1

- 7/22/2000 5:08:00 PM

Santa Klaus

Posts: 18
Joined: 5/24/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline

Hi Headhunter, I second you on 1 and 2. I really enjoy ASL because of it's realism and wish I could see some of that in SAPWaW too. Especially ASLs DYO and Historical Campaign systems are great. And it would provide a cure for the Tiger2/T43 wave. Another (off threat) improvement I'd like to see is a "next/previous" button in the unit info window, so I could scroll through all my units, without leaving the unit info window. Just my 2C woth Ciao Klaus, really enjoying SPWaW :-D

_____________________________

(in reply to headhunter)

Post #: 2

- 7/22/2000 6:15:00 PM

victorhauser

Posts: 318
Joined: 5/29/2000
From: austin, texas
Status: offline

These issues have been debated at length in previous topics of this forum. I refer you to the "AFV Pricing Method!" topic (dated July 15th), the "PzVIe Turret" topic (dated July 14th), and the "Sorted AFV Unit Prices" topic (dated July 7th) for a pretty complete debate of the issues Headhunter raises. [This message has been edited by victorhauser (edited July 22, 2000).] [This message has been edited by victorhauser (edited July 22, 2000).]

_____________________________

VAH

(in reply to headhunter)

Post #: 3

- 7/23/2000 4:50:00 AM

headhunter

Posts: 81
Joined: 5/8/2000
Status: offline

Hi victorhauser ! After reading the threads you pointed me to, as I understand it, "Sorted AFV Unit Prices" and "AFV pricing method" focus on unit pricing and finding some well balanced formula for unit cost. This is quite different from what I was proposing. I think the units costs are of greater importance for scenarios, while I would like to see rarity/avaiability values in the (generated) campaign (and leave the unit costs alone). In my opinion, scenarios/human-vs-human would not benefit from an avaiability value. I also waded through all 77 (!) posts in "Pz-VIe Turret" which I ignored before, because I didn't take much interest in the question how to rate the PzVIe front/armor or if the mantlet thickness should be added to the armor value or not. The only (quite well hidden) post related to unit rarity I found there is from Voriax and still point 2) and 3) of my post above are ideas that, to my knowledge, were not mentioned before. In "Pz-VIe Turret", page 1, Voriax writes: "If some day a separate rarity factor can be programmed in that will limit the players choices of equipment it'll be great but now we are stuck with this. Btw, there is already a rarity factor in that will direct a bit of AI's buyings (the second number in unit's radio code). For human players we must rely on our good judgement." There is a rarity factor in the OOBs ? That should make it even easier to enforce avaiability restrictions for the human player, too. Besides the changes that will probably come with v3.0, a system that took rarity/avaibility into account is my *single* wish left for SPWAW. I still hope that it will come, be it in v3 or someday in the future, even after Matrixgames have finished another great game. So please excuse my obsession with this issue.

_____________________________

(in reply to headhunter)

Post #: 4

- 7/23/2000 5:21:00 AM

Voriax

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by headhunter: In "Pz-VIe Turret", page 1, Voriax writes: "If some day a separate rarity factor can be programmed in that will limit the players choices of equipment it'll be great but now we are stuck with this. Btw, there is already a rarity factor in that will direct a bit of AI's buyings (the second number in unit's radio code). For human players we must rely on our good judgement." There is a rarity factor in the OOBs ? That should make it even easier to enforce avaiability restrictions for the human player, too.

Perhaps I'll add a bit to this. the current 'rarity' factor is the second number in the unit's radio code, first being the % chance in 10s of % for the possibility of a unit having a radio. As for the second number, 0 means common, 1 not very common, 2 rare and 3 means unavailable unless part of a formation. Basically this means computer will buy units from 0 and 1 category. how does the AI determine whether it buys a '0' unit or '2' is beyond my knowledge. I don't expect we'll see this rarity factor in the game very soon

What might be easier to do is to give a certain % chance that a given unit is available during it's entry date. Say 20% availability for the first month and then 20% more each month...this should be limited to campaigns only and might add flavour as you could not know if you'll be able to buy those Tigers for the next battle or not

As you are talking about 'value' in your posts I'm not sure if you mean that 'rare' units should cost more? I'd leave the prices fixed and have a % value determining if there is another Tiger at the motor pool or not. After all, if the train bringing you replacements got bombed no amount of $ (points) will give you a new Tiger... Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to headhunter)

Post #: 5

- 7/23/2000 10:27:00 AM

johnfmonahan

Posts: 82
Joined: 6/11/2000
From: Waterford WI, USA
Status: offline

I think that a rarity factor on/off button might be the answer. When playing another player, they may agree to it to avoid the Tiger bn vs the inf bde. When playing the AI, a player may wish to try just that ! I am uncomfortable when face units in a scenario that exceed total historical production. A month by month factor would be great ! Wild Bill, is this a possibility ? ------------------ When in doubt, go on line.

_____________________________

When in doubt, go on line.

(in reply to headhunter)

Post #: 6

- 7/23/2000 3:11:00 PM

Desert Fox

Posts: 171
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Ohio, that is all I can say.
Status: offline

The SP series has always lacked a rarity feature. This is complicated by the fact that there are so many different units in the SP games. Doing the research to figure out how many units were produced in month X is very time consuming. A lot of other games deal with this by offering a much smaller amount of unique units. However, a lot of other games have this feature, and it is very important to the realism of the WW2 era. Had the Germans been able to produce King Tigers like the Americans produced Shermans, the war would have been very different. But they did not, they could not. SPWAW has done so much for the realism of the game. What we need now is this very important factor thrown into the game. Lets face it, this rarity factor is the whole reason the Allies won WW2. The question is not should this be implemented, but when will it be implemented? Now my opinion on how it should be impemented is biased based on my experience with the Close Combat series. In the Close Combat games, you get a requisition screen where you have all available unit types listed, and the number of each unit that is actually available is also listed next to the unit type. From there you spend your points, attempting to make the best use of the points you have, and the units available to you. Reinforcements are added to the pool based not only on time, but on how many units you already have available to you. In SPWAW, there should also be a progress determining factor here, to reflect how your battlefield succes, or lack thereof, is impacting the war effort. So, for example, you have 20 Tiger 1's available to you at a certain time. You buy 5 of them for your battle. The next month, you may see 25 Tigers in reserve. This time you dont buy any. So the next month you still have 25 Tigers in reserve since HQ saw that you already had plenty in reserve. Now lets say you lose the next battle and HQ has to allocate your reserves elsewhere, so you have only 10 in reserve. Now you buy all 10 to replace your beat up force, and win the next battle. Now maybe you have 30 available to you from the victory's impact on the war effort, HQ replacing your reserves, and the increased overall availability of Tigers since they have been in service for a while. Well lets now say that you have Panthers available to you now. You change your 10 into Panthers. Now you have 40 Tigers in reserve. After the next battle HQ may see that you are not using Tigers and you only have 25 available for requisition. Now, this could get complicated, and it should. War production was complicated, especially for the Germans who were being bombed for nearly the entire war, and the British who relied very heavily on supplies from the US and abroad that frequently got sunk. However it is done, though, I think that it is a vital addition to the game. I also know that all the programmers at Matrix will hate this idea.

_____________________________

(in reply to headhunter)

Post #: 7

- 7/23/2000 5:57:00 PM

Norm

Posts: 16
Joined: 7/7/2000
Status: offline

I, too would like to see a rarity factor. The GAV seems like a good approach. Then everyone can choose if they want to have an impact or follow the historic production level. Also I'd like to see some action in Norway and the Balkan. It's called the 'long' campain... Another idea would be the variable core size. Maybe based on a victory series (2-3)to have the core size increased by a certain number (if the colonel wishes). --Norm

_____________________________

(in reply to headhunter)

Post #: 8