One more bombarded fort BUG!!!

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

One more bombarded fort BUG!!!

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 >> One more bombarded fort BUG!!!

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

One more bombarded fort BUG!!! - 7/28/2000 3:22:00 PM

renwor

Posts: 118
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: czech republic
Status: offline

Hi all Just trying another scenario (after getting bored with long campaigns, which doesn't make much sense). It's "No easy place" from Wild Bill and it's really pleasant quiet place after those long campaign 100+ tank battles. Here germans have couple of pillboxes and MG nests, Russians quite a number of mortars (107mm and 50mm). Now, pilboxes got bombarded from mortars and got almost depopulated in few turns. There was never "HIT" reported, but the crew of forts was supressed/ killed as if infantry in the open, !!! even by shots landing in neighbouring hexes.!!!! Neither pillbox, nor MG nest is open topped, walls are some 25-75mm thick, so I would expect crew of fort would be treated as in the vehicle, but obviously it is not. I smell a BUG here. Oh, it's v.2.3 and I have arty vs. soft targets set to 200%. But fort isn't soft, or is it? Anybody can support my observation? Explain it?? Repair it????

_____________________________

Post #: 1

- 7/28/2000 9:17:00 PM

BA Evans

Posts: 250
Joined: 5/25/2000
From: USA
Status: offline

Bunkers break the rules. The crew/infantry are soft, the bunker itself is hard. This was mentioned on a thread a few weeks ago.

_____________________________

(in reply to renwor)

Post #: 2

- 7/28/2000 10:05:00 PM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

We did fix a bug that cuts this down somewhat - the "crews" in forts were not being considered "entrenched" - they are now counted as "entrenched" and are not depopulated nearly as rapidly by concussion effects

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to renwor)

Post #: 3

- 7/28/2000 10:06:00 PM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

But that's ridiculous. The crew of an AFV is just as soft. Right now, fort crews take far more casualties from artillery than any other unit does. The larger forts should be completely proof against anything below 155. I know they're trying to accelerate the attrition because you don't have three days worth of turns to reduce bunkers, but right now they're more like giant concrete buckets. [This message has been edited by Seth (edited July 28, 2000).]

_____________________________

(in reply to renwor)

Post #: 4

- 7/29/2000 12:44:00 AM

BA Evans

Posts: 250
Joined: 5/25/2000
From: USA
Status: offline

Can we just change the name from "Bunkers" to "Buckets"?

_____________________________

(in reply to renwor)

Post #: 5

- 7/29/2000 12:51:00 AM

Desert Fox

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

quote:

Originally posted by Seth: But that's ridiculous. The crew of an AFV is just as soft. Right now, fort crews take far more casualties from artillery than any other unit does. The larger forts should be completely proof against anything below 155. I know they're trying to accelerate the attrition because you don't have three days worth of turns to reduce bunkers, but right now they're more like giant concrete buckets. [This message has been edited by Seth (edited July 28, 2000).]

I would tend to agree with this. While I know having invulnerable bunkers is not good for the length of the game, I also know that bunkers are best taken out by bypassing and cutting them off. Yes this is not always an option, but I think that another important point to make is that artillery could not wipe out bunkers, even if it was from a 16" battleship. Every invasion the Marines conducted in the Pacific is very good proof of this. As it stands now, you can sit back and reduce a bunker in a few turns with heavy artillery. Ideally, the toughest bunkers should only be able to be knocked out by an infantry assault, or a flamethrower equipped unit. Artillery should have very little effect on heavy bunkers, other than suppression.

_____________________________

(in reply to renwor)

Post #: 6

- 7/29/2000 4:10:00 AM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

My post snuck in before Paul's. I'm glad to see that the crews are no longer being forced to dance on the roof while being shelled, but they really should at least be completely immune from fire in adjacent hexes.

_____________________________

(in reply to renwor)

Post #: 7

- 7/29/2000 5:50:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

I just tried and it lloks like you still have to "entrench" a fort to get full protection....I will see if we can get that fixed, but remeber what are the most common forts! THe big honking maginot line and Seigfried line monsters are the exception. The "normal" forts are cement, logs, "boiler plate" armor and dirt mounded up, not excatly the things you need "Force 10" to take out. A log MG nest, or a rifle pit with top cover or even a cement bunker has vulnerabilities to artillery. The armor protection of most has been cut down on many of them for version 3. We have to work with what the game design gives us and we will see what we can do to differentiate "monster forts" form a log reinforced dugout. For now they all play by the same rules and we figured having the "regular forts" behave in a somewhat vulnerable fashion was better, even if it means you don't have to use Commandos to take out Navorrone... WE can only tweak so much so fast...and every time we do we create 3 more things like this that require a tweak, which cause 3 more tweaks etc :-) It'll get there!!

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to renwor)

Post #: 8

- 7/30/2000 10:12:00 PM

victorhauser

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

Will it be possible to simulate the US Army vs. the Siegfried Line (say, at Aachen) or the Gustav Line (say, at Monte Cassino), the Wehrmacht vs. the Kursk fortifications, and the USMC vs. the Japanese (say, at Iwo Jima) with the new v3.0 fort rules? I ask because I'm thinking about designing a few scenarios (for the expert masochists) involving battles that included heavily fortified zones.

_____________________________

VAH

(in reply to renwor)

Post #: 9

- 7/31/2000 5:07:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

In scenarios you can "entrench" the forts ..looks a little starnge - but cuts the casualties down. We are experimenting with an AFV based turreted fort to help solve the problem with simulating major fortresses. I am not sure if the "entrenchment fort bug" will be fixed for version 3 or not... it ay have to wait for a patch. Our schedule just can't slip any more to the right...

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to renwor)

Post #: 10

- 7/31/2000 6:00:00 AM

Don

Posts: 810
Joined: 7/12/2000
From: Elk Grove, CA (near Sacramento)
Status: offline

Originally posted by victorhauser: I ask because I'm thinking about designing a few scenarios (for the expert masochists) involving battles that included heavily fortified zone. ___________________________________________ I for one hope you design those scenarios! I find the scenarios with alot of fortifications alot of fun for some reason - it must be the pleasure of finally knocking them out!

Don

_____________________________

Don "Sapper" Llewellyn

(in reply to renwor)

Post #: 11

- 7/31/2000 10:51:00 AM

Wild Bill

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline

Okay, I have read all the posts carefully. I have seen this argument pro and con go on for months. First there was wailing and gnashing of teeth

because the forts were almost completely indestructible. a similar argument went forth about the weakness of artillery. Artillery was fixed (I personally think so anyway. I'm happy with it.) and bunkers were made a little less indestructible. So now the problem is that the crews are shaken up badly by the constant pounding. Is that really that unrealistic?

Now let me ask you something, taking a real look at this. I cannot for the life of me conceive of a bunker crew blissfully eating lunch, pausing after a sip of brew to stand up and fire a few rounds, yawn, stretch scratch their butt, wipe their hands with a dirty towel and finish their meal. If there were tanks, artillery rounds and tons of steel being hurled at my little bunker...well, sure, tell me that it is completely secure. Tell me that, when my teeth are rattling and my nose is bleeding. But say it very loud, because my eardrums may not be in good shape either. Steel Panthers is a game of action, of movement. I like a scenario occasionally about the Maginot Line or the West Wall. Yes I do. I design them. BUT, I cannot see for the life of me getting bogged down in a shooting match with bunkers for an hour because I cant get to the objectives any other way. If you want a happy medium, make the concussion effects a little less and the destructibility ratings of bunkers a little higher. I could live with that. But please don't make bunkers indestructible and also oblivious. I don't think I could handle that.

------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

_____________________________

In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to renwor)

Post #: 12

- 7/31/2000 8:46:00 PM

renwor

Posts: 118
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: czech republic
Status: offline

Oh well, who is talking about making the bunkers indestructible. i agree that those depicted in SPWAW are most of the time field fortifications, nothing too hard, but honestly, I do thing that crew in a roofed MG nest should be at least as well protected as neighbouring entrenched inf, sqad. At the moment is about as well protected as that charging the glass mountain. Frankly, until I see AI doing exactly that, it did'nt occur to me to use those generaly useless 50mm mortars against heavy pillboxes ... BUT IT WORKS, WORKS GREAT!!! If I find myself in the beaten zone of, lets say 150mm battery and I have a choice of hiding myself in a halftrack or concrete Mg nest, I would go for the nest, how about you? Also I suspect the routine for counting damage from neigbouring hexes overacts a bit. I mean shells cause more damage in neigbouring hexes, than in actual impact zone. And I know there are six neigbouring hexes, so iven half damage x 6 hexes is three times that. No , I think this based on observation of just two sqads next to one another in various stages of movement/entrenchment. Renwor

_____________________________

(in reply to renwor)

Post #: 13

- 8/1/2000 3:09:00 AM

victorhauser

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

quote:

Originally posted by Wild Bill: Okay, I have read all the posts carefully. I have seen this argument pro and con go on for months. First there was wailing and gnashing of teeth because the forts were almost completely indestructible. a similar argument went forth about the weakness of artillery. . . .

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." --Hunter S. Thompson The way I interpret this ebb and flow for and against forts and artillery is to provide another option slot in the Player Preferences menu for "Fort Toughness". Similar option slots have been provided for both Tank Toughness and for Artillery Effectiveness. Then, whichever way a player is ebbing or flowing that day, he can simply adjust the forts in his game to match his current state of mind.

[This message has been edited by victorhauser (edited July 31, 2000).]

_____________________________

VAH

(in reply to renwor)

Post #: 14

- 8/1/2000 9:22:00 PM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

Well - the pros and cons were weighed and in versin 3 forts are now treated like tanks. You can suppress them to high heaven, but the occupants will not take casualties from artillery. It was deemed even the rudimentary ones needed to take a direct hit to cause significant casualties to the crew in the short term. So thank's to all who contributed to this debate!

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to renwor)

Post #: 15

- 8/1/2000 10:31:00 PM

renwor

Posts: 118
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: czech republic
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: Well - the pros and cons were weighed and in versin 3 forts are now treated like tanks. You can suppress them to high heaven, but the occupants will not take casualties from artillery. It was deemed even the rudimentary ones needed to take a direct hit to cause significant casualties to the crew in the short term. So thank's to all who contributed to this debate!

Oh, lovely !!!! Thats EXACTLY what I wanted to achieve. In other words, the thread is closed !!!

Thanks a lot!!!! Damn, some current scenarios would be much, much tougher in v. 3 ! Renwor, bouncing up and down excitedly.

_____________________________

(in reply to renwor)

Post #: 16