Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Some Observations

 
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 >> Some Observations Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Some Observations - 8/31/2007 5:42:49 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		German Flak 88s can unload and fire in the same turn.
If a German Flak 88 can unload and fire in the same turn, then machineguns and medium mortars and light mortars should be able to do the same thing.



French AMR 33 and AMR 35 and FT17 and FT31 tanks are Size 1.
I thought that Size 2 was supposed to be the minimum size for all vehicles. I'm pretty sure that a Kubelwagen (Size 2) and a Jeep (Size 2) are smaller than French AMR and FT tanks.

_____________________________
Post #: 1
RE: Some Observations - 8/31/2007 8:29:02 PM   
Alby


Posts: 4855
Joined: 4/29/2000
From: Greenwood, Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

German Flak 88s can unload and fire in the same turn.
If a German Flak 88 can unload and fire in the same turn, then machineguns and medium mortars and light mortars should be able to do the same thing.

Well that would have required a Code change which we could not do.
The "Hvy Flak" class was coded to do that by the programmer, so we put it back into the game as the programmer had orinally intended.
Actually all 'Hvy Flak' class units can fire after unload if we had so chosen to class more guns that way.
Previous oob teams thought this was a 'bug' when in fact it was not.

French AMR 33 and AMR 35 and FT17 and FT31 tanks are Size 1.
I thought that Size 2 was supposed to be the minimum size for all vehicles. I'm pretty sure that a Kubelwagen (Size 2) and a Jeep (Size 2) are smaller than French AMR and FT tanks.

I once had an excell sheet from Mike Wood that explained the sizes, but have since lost it.
perhaps we missed a couple vehicles...oh well..









< Message edited by Alby -- 9/1/2007 12:01:55 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 2
RE: Some Observations - 9/1/2007 12:13:17 AM   
FlashfyreSP


Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

German Flak 88s can unload and fire in the same turn.
If a German Flak 88 can unload and fire in the same turn, then machineguns and medium mortars and light mortars should be able to do the same thing.


The 88 FlaK was designed in such a way that it could be fired, nearly fully-functional, while limbered. This is not the same as "unloaded", where trails are set, wheels removed, jackstands run down and the predictors connected and fired up. MGs and mortars, OTOH, when moved typically required some disassembly and reassembly (not all, but exceptions are not provided for in the abstract nature of the game) once brought to their new position. To head off "but what about thus-and-so" comments, remember that all weapons of a particular class MUST have the same class characteristics as every other weapon in that class. It is the "nature of the beast", that the game has a limited number of classes, each with its own characteristics, and weapons have to be fit into them. Of course, light mortars such as the British 2" and the US 60mm M19 had few parts and could be brought into action rapidly. But the Light Mortar class does not distinguish between the 2" and the German 5cm moerser, which requires some setup. All Light Mortar units act like one another; they all "lose shots" when moved.

The Heavy FlaK Unit Class was built specifically for this weapon, and no other large-calibre AA gun. However, some other nation's heavy AA guns (the US 90mm M1 is one example) were built under the same concept, and have been assigned the Heavy FlaK class. But, there is no provision for penalizing these units for firing "on the move", so to speak, or firing without their sights and other paraphernalia. So they are just as effective firing from their limbers as they are firing fully set up, which is something we have to live with.

_____________________________


(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 3
RE: Some Observations - 9/1/2007 12:26:56 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Alby,

My comment regarding size 2 vehicles was because I thought that a decision had been made somewhere that allowing any vehicle to be size 1 created the possibility of game-play abuses, which was why jeeps and kubelwagens were converted from size 1 into size 2.  So even if a vehicle would technically be a 'size 1', all vehicles were given a minimum of size 2.  To prevent game-play abuses.  Right?

_____________________________


(in reply to FlashfyreSP)
Post #: 4
RE: Some Observations - 9/1/2007 12:27:15 AM   
FlashfyreSP


Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser




French AMR 33 and AMR 35 and FT17 and FT31 tanks are Size 1.
I thought that Size 2 was supposed to be the minimum size for all vehicles. I'm pretty sure that a Kubelwagen (Size 2) and a Jeep (Size 2) are smaller than French AMR and FT tanks.


To my knowledge, there has never been a "set" rule as to Unit Size. Since it is an abstract concept anyhow, a Size 1 can mean many things: large mass over many parts (think squad of men), tall object but with small width (tanks like the FT17), wide but low object (the AMR series were very low-slung tanks, not more than 6' tall), or any number of other "size" conceptions. The AMR 35 is probably wrong, as it was over 2 meters tall and wide, which should qualify for a Size 2. However, the error may also be with the Jeep and Kuebelwagen units, which perhaps should be Size 1 instead.

The trouble is in determing exactly what the Size rating addresses, and what it measures. With so many interpretations, it's hard to say which is right and which is wrong.

_____________________________


(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 5
RE: Some Observations - 9/1/2007 9:13:43 AM   
Kevin E. Duguay

 

Posts: 1044
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Goldsboro, North Carolina
Status: offline 		Jeep units size one works for me.

_____________________________

KED

(in reply to FlashfyreSP)
Post #: 6
RE: Some Observations - 9/1/2007 11:55:08 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Alby,

My comment regarding size 2 vehicles was because I thought that a decision had been made somewhere that allowing any vehicle to be size 1 created the possibility of game-play abuses, which was why jeeps and kubelwagens were converted from size 1 into size 2.  So even if a vehicle would technically be a 'size 1', all vehicles were given a minimum of size 2.  To prevent game-play abuses.  Right?


Alby?


_____________________________


(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 7
RE: Some Observations - 9/1/2007 4:48:06 PM   
Alby


Posts: 4855
Joined: 4/29/2000
From: Greenwood, Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser


quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Alby,

My comment regarding size 2 vehicles was because I thought that a decision had been made somewhere that allowing any vehicle to be size 1 created the possibility of game-play abuses, which was why jeeps and kubelwagens were converted from size 1 into size 2.  So even if a vehicle would technically be a 'size 1', all vehicles were given a minimum of size 2.  To prevent game-play abuses.  Right?


Alby?


I dont recall any rule about all vehicles having to be size 2.
somewhere on this Forum sometime back, I posted the list of unit sizes and how they are obtained. I found it and posted below, but it is old, prior to Mike updating the mech and editor, so it doesnt help much.
We didnt 'convert' too many sizes that I recall, the programmers conventions says it "fixes" "some' unit size issues. so.......
The way Mike explained it to me, there is a formula used, height x width x length divided by something or another...I dont remember exactly....
anyway, I am sure some vehicles here and there were missed using the 'Conventions'
anyway it is a moot point now as Enhanced is what it is......If anyone can find a cleaner set of OOBs out there, then more power to them.....


SPWaW Editor vs. 5.0 Menu Batch Option Features

1) Fix Known File Data Entry Errors: Changes the HEAT rounds in infantry anti-tank units from HEAT ammunition to the AP ammunition the program expects, deletes any APCR rounds in units if the weapon APCR maximum range is zero (a crash to desk top bug) or the weapon APCR penetration value is zero, deletes any HEAT rounds in units if the HEAT penetration value is zero, makes all bicycle and motorcycle units size one, cavalry units size two, changes non-vehicular size zero units of 5 or more men to size one, changes any size zero anti-tank guns or mortars to size one and changes some size one infantry and machine gun units of four or fewer men to size zero.


"Unit Size:

0 = Snipers, 4 man or less machine guns and 2 to 4 man recon patrols.
1 = Infantry, bicycles, crewmen, motorcycles, all mortars, all infantry guns, anti-aircraft guns up to 40mm, artillery up to 76.2mm and anti-tank guns up to 76.2mm.
2 = Anti-aircraft guns of 57mm to 76.2mm, artillery larger than 76.2mm, anti-tank guns larger than 76.2mm, cavalry, utility vehicles and other transport with a carry capacity of less than 10 (or 110),.
3 = Small armored cars, most armored vehicles without turrets such as self-propelled guns and tank destroyers, small tanks, anti-aircraft guns larger than 76.2mm, transport with a carry capacity from 10 (or 110) to 19 (or 119).
4 = Normal sized tanks, large armored vehicles without turrets such as self-propelled guns and tank destroyers, transport with a carry capacity of 20 (or 210) to 29 (or 219).
5 = Large tanks, very large armored vehicles without turrets such as self-propelled guns and tank destroyers.
6 = Very, very large vehicles.





< Message edited by Alby -- 9/1/2007 5:02:24 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 8
RE: Some Observations - 9/1/2007 7:49:42 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Alby,

Okay. According to that Unit Size chart, those French AMR and FT tanks should be size 3 instead of size 1.  Indeed, as I thought, no vehicular unit should be smaller than size 2, and indeed only utility vehicles should be size 2.

Personal customization of the Enhanced OOBs is not an option for me. 

_____________________________


(in reply to Alby)
Post #: 9
RE: Some Observations - 9/2/2007 2:35:31 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Alby,

Personal customization of the Enhanced OOBs is not an option for me. 


Why not? It's easy to do.

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 10
RE: Some Observations - 9/2/2007 2:58:09 AM   
FlashfyreSP


Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline 		The chart is a guideline. It is not a set rule to follow. Until someone can define "Size" explicitly, none of the current settings are "wrong". you may not agree with them, but that's why it's called an opinion.

There is some experimentation going on out there with a few of the Unit Data fields, to determine what settings are optimal; Size values according to that chart are off by a factor of 1, minimum.


_____________________________


(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 11
RE: Some Observations - 9/2/2007 4:18:37 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Erwin,

It has nothing to do with my ability to customize the Enhanced OOBs.  There are outside influences and factors involved.  So, it's not an option for me.

And besides, I chose the title of this thread carefully.  I didn't say errors or problems.  I said observations.  As in 'things I find curious'.

EDIT: That said, however, there were valid reasons for making the minimum vehicle size 2. I remember very well the abuses and exploits using size 1 vehicles back in the old days. French players will be able to take advantage of those abuses and exploits with the AMR and FT tanks. That's all I'm saying.
Bottom line: size 2 minimum is a game-play issue and not an historical issue. History must be subordinated to the demands of the game in order to prevent game-play abuses and exploits. That's all I'm trying to say.

< Message edited by vahauser -- 9/2/2007 4:31:09 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to FlashfyreSP)
Post #: 12
RE: Some Observations - 9/17/2007 2:50:41 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		I also am for making small vehicles size "1", in that current size "1" units are either squad sized or a gun team of some kind, generally.
Even spread out the mass of a squad is certainly larger than a jeep?
Besides, I'm tired of seeing recon jeeps go around a ridge and getting pasted on a 1st shot by a 75L70....


_____________________________




(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 13
RE: Some Observations - 9/18/2007 2:20:21 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		m10bob,

That is precisely why the minimum size of all vehicles was made to be 2.  If the minimum size of vehicles is not size 2, then there are all kinds of abuses and exploits that can be employed with size 1 vehicles.  I know this for a fact since I used to perform those abuses and exploits back in the days of version 7.1 with size 1 jeeps and kubelwagens.

This is a game-play issue and not an historical issue.  It would be a big mistake from a game-play perspective if somebody decided to "fix" this.  I have no desire to go back to the days of version 7.1 abuses and exploits using size 1 vehicles.  [And I've recently been able to re-live those unhappy version 7.1 days fighting against the French in 1939-40 with their size 1 AMR and FT tanks.  This is a warning to anybody who plays against the French in 1939-40.]

Repeat, this is a game-play issue that has nothing to do with history. 

Bottom line: The game plays better if the minimum size for vehicles is 2.

_____________________________


(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 14
RE: Some Observations - 9/18/2007 2:57:41 AM   
FlashfyreSP


Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

m10bob,

That is precisely why the minimum size of all vehicles was made to be 2. If the minimum size of vehicles is not size 2, then there are all kinds of abuses and exploits that can be employed with size 1 vehicles. I know this for a fact since I used to perform those abuses and exploits back in the days of version 7.1 with size 1 jeeps and kubelwagens.

This is a game-play issue and not an historical issue. It would be a big mistake from a game-play perspective if somebody decided to "fix" this. I have no desire to go back to the days of version 7.1 abuses and exploits using size 1 vehicles. [And I've recently been able to re-live those unhappy version 7.1 days fighting against the French in 1939-40 with their size 1 AMR and FT tanks. This is a warning to anybody who plays against the French in 1939-40.]

Repeat, this is a game-play issue that has nothing to do with history.

Bottom line: The game plays better if the minimum size for vehicles is 2.


Again, I must reiterate this, this is ONLY your opinion, vahauser. The majority of players seem to prefer certain vehicles being Size 1, and even Mike Woods indicated that vehicles similar to the Jeep or other light utility car be made Size 1.

If it's a gameplay issue for you, then change your OOBs to suit your style. But, please...stop making out like your OPINION is in any way the definitive word on the issue. You are NOT an official Matrix representative, nor do you have any standing in the community that gives you a special platform to try and "mold" the game in your very narrow parameters. You are a player like every other player in the world. If you don't like the way the game is made, you have all the tools at your disposal to adapt it to your own style. Which, by the way, does not seem to be very popular with others.

_____________________________


(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 15
RE: Some Observations - 9/18/2007 3:42:13 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

It has nothing to do with my ability to customize the Enhanced OOBs.  There are outside influences and factors involved.  So, it's not an option for me.



And what are these "outside influences and factors" ?

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 16
RE: Some Observations - 9/18/2007 10:16:09 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Okay.  Look.  All I'm saying is this.  There is a reason that the current minimum vehicle size is 2 in the game (with certain anomalies and aberrations like the French AMR and FT tanks). 

I didn't change all those size 1 vehicles to size 2 vehicles.  What I'm commenting on is a FACT, not an opinion.  Somebody changed all those size 1 vehicles into size 2 vehicles several years ago (my memory says that version 7.1 had size 1 vehicles, but later versions changed all those size 1 vehicles into size 2 vehicles, although my memory is not what it used to be).  And what is also a fact is that the change from size 1 to size 2 was made for a reason.  And that the reason had nothing to do with history and everything to do with game-play issues arising from people complaining that size 1 vehicles led to too many abuses and exploits.  This is also not an opinion.  This is a fact.

Indeed, my memory tells me that at that time (post version 7.1 several years ago) I was opposed to changing all those size 1 vehicles into size 2 because I enjoyed abusing and exploiting the game using size 1 vehicles at the time.  Anyway, the point is that it wasn't ME who changed all the size 1 vehicles into size 2, and made the minimum vehicle size 2 in the game.  Somebody on the Matrix Staff did it.  And that is also a fact, not an opinion.

And just look at me now.  I'm actually saying that size 2 minimum for vehicles is good for the game, which is the exact opposite from the position I took several years ago when size 2 vehicles were made the minimum in the game.  Today, I'm not so interested in abusing and exploiting the game as I used to be.  These days I'm more interested in finding ways to make the game more challenging instead of ways to exploit and abuse.  I've changed.

But what I find curious is that people today want to turn the clock back to the days before size 2 was made the default minimum for vehicles in the game.  And when I point out that these discussions and debates have already occurred several years ago (size 1 versus size 2 minimum), I am told that my opinion is only a small voice in a larger universe.  As if I didn't know that.

Yet what you are missing is this.  Somebody on the Matrix Staff had the vision to make size 2 the default minimum for vehicles because it was good for the game.  I don't know who did it.  I suspect Paul Vebber (at least that's who I remember arguing with the most about it [I remember arguing with Paul Vebber about most things, and my arguments with FlashFyre these days are very tame compared with my arguments with Paul in those days]).  And at the time it happened I opposed the size 2 minimum for vehicles.  But today I have changed my position, and I now agree that whoever made the change (to size 2 default minimum for vehicles) in the game did the game a favor.  And that my opinion at the time several years ago to retain size 1 vehicles was selfish and based on taking advantage of the game instead of making the game better.  Paul (or whoever) was right by changing the default minimum for vehicles to size 2, and I (and those like me) was wrong by wanting to keep size 1 vehicles in the game.

But if today somebody wants to change the game yet again back into a world of abuse and exploit by re-introducing size 1 vehicles as the default minimum (version 7.1 and earlier), then I find myself in the curious position of defending a position that I opposed several years ago. 

And what I find even more curious is that now that I'm defending something that actually makes the game better (size 2 minimum default for vehicles), I am being called out for it. 

All I am saying is that this issue was debated and argued about several years ago.  And that several years ago somebody on the Matrix Staff changed the minimum default vehicle size to 2.  And that several years ago I argued in favor of size 1 vehicles because several years ago I was selfish and liked to take advantage of the game using size 1 vehicles.  And that several years ago somebody on the Matrix Staff had the best interests of the game in mind when they changed the game to a size 2 minimum default for vehicles.  And that today I've finally come around to the position of making the game better instead of making the game easier to abuse.  Which means that I finally agree with whoever on the Matrix Staff had the good sense and vision to change the game to a size 2 minimum default for vehicles.  Which means that today I oppose changing the game back to version 7.1 by re-introducing size 1 vehicles.


_____________________________


(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 17
RE: Some Observations - 9/18/2007 11:49:20 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		I would like to think part of that "size" thing also reflects the noise made by the vehicles, (noise being tied in with detectability).
Of course a jeep is louder than a squad of walking infantry, but their are recorded instances of jeep-type vehicles having their mufflers removed and made to backfire so behind a treeline or ridges, the enemy might feel they were fronted by tanks, because "stock jeeps" would not be as detectable as tanks, other-wise.

_____________________________




(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 18
RE: Some Observations - 9/18/2007 12:36:34 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		m10bob,

Sigh.  I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but you are missing the point.  You are still mind-locked on "historical" reasons for size 1 vehicles.  That is NOT the problem.

The game originally had size 1 vehicles.  People complained that size 1 vehicles created game imbalances and exploits and abuses.  THAT is the problem.  And that is a fact.

So, somebody on the Matrix Staff changed the default minimum for vehicles to size 2 several years ago.  And that solved the problem of game-play imbalances and exploits and abuses.

Size 2 vehicles make the game play better.  That is a fact.  It is a fact because it eliminates the game-play imbalances and exploits and abuses created by size 1 vehicles.

Several years ago I argued in favor of size 1 vehicles.  Why?  Because at the time I liked to exploit and abuse the game.

Today I argue in favor of size 2 vehicles as a default minimum.  Why?  Because I'm no longer interested in exploiting and abusing the game (been there done that) and am more interested in eliminating game-play imbalances and exploits and abuses.

This is a game-play issue that has nothing to do with anything "historical".  It is a game-play issue that was resolved favorably several years ago by somebody on the Matrix Staff who made size 2 the default minimum for vehicles.  That person did the game a valuable service, even though I argued against it at the time.


< Message edited by vahauser -- 9/18/2007 12:38:30 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 19
RE: Some Observations - 9/18/2007 2:19:50 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

m10bob,

Sigh.  I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but you are missing the point.  You are still mind-locked on "historical" reasons for size 1 vehicles.  That is NOT the problem.



No, I did not miss "the" point, not even missing "YOUR" point.
I was merely making an observation.

I tolerate you, friend, so there is no need for the condescending "sighs", or some other intended expression of derogatory impatience toward a percieved intellectual inferior, (which would be an error on your part).

To give your threads more credence, in future, here is the the only known pic of that "somebody at Matrix" known to exist.
Use it freely.......





Attachment (1)

_____________________________




(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 20
RE: Some Observations - 9/18/2007 5:07:13 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		m10bob,

Fair enough.  But I don't know what observation you are referring to.

In an earlier post you stated that you wanted size 1 vehicles put back into the game.  I replied that size 1 vehicles presented serious game-balance and exploit and abuse issues.  Issues serious enough that the man behind the curtain at Matrix changed all size 1 vehicles into size 2 vehicles, and made size 2 the default minimum size for vehicles.  This happened several years ago sometime around version 7.1  And this did indeed solve the problems, even though I opposed the change at the time.  At the time I absolutely wanted my size 1 vehicles so I could take advantage of the game.

Over the years I have finally recognized the wisdom of the man behind the curtain at Matrix who solved the problem and made the game better by making size 2 the default minimum for vehicles.  I was wrong to argue for my size 1 vehicles so I could abuse the system, and he was right to make the change to size 2 minimum default vehicle size.  I see this clearly now.

Which brings me back to wondering what observation you are referring to.

_____________________________


(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 21
RE: Some Observations - 9/19/2007 1:27:19 AM   
Goblin


Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline
quote:


Size 2 vehicles make the game play better.  That is a fact.  It is a fact because it eliminates the game-play imbalances and exploits and abuses created by size 1 vehicles.


Opinion. Some may feel that it makes the play worse. Since everyone's view of what makes play 'better' is vaild for them, and likely differs between players, then this statement is subjective opinion, not fact.



I agree that size two for vehicles is better, by the way.



Goblin


_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 22
RE: Some Observations - 9/19/2007 1:58:54 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Goblin,

The man behind the curtain at Matrix who changed all the size 1 vehicles into size 2 and made the default minimum size for vehicles 2 (I'm guessing Paul Vebber) was convinced that that was the right thing to do to make the game play better by eliminating game-play abuses.

Since I argued in favor of size 1 vehicles several years ago (I hated the size 2 jeeps because I had a harder time abusing the game), I certainly have looked at this issue from both sides.

After heated debate and argument several years ago (and I was one of the loudest and most obnoxious advocates of retaining size 1 vehicles as you might well imagine), the man behind the curtain at Matrix decided that the game-play abuses using size 1 vehicles was a fact, not an opinion.  And as I said, I've spent a long time sitting on both sides of this fence.  And I assure you that I was pissed off for a long time when my beloved size 1 jeeps and kubelwagens were made size 2.

But I am 100% certain today that size 1 vehicles absolutely results in game-play abuses.  I know this for a fact.  And here is why this is a fact and not an opinion.

When a size 1 infantry unit moves, it becomes MORE vulnerable not less vulnerable.  But when a size 1 vehicle moves, it becomes LESS vulnerable not more.  And the faster a size 1 vehicle moves, the less and less vulnerable it becomes until it reaches a point where it is almost impossible to hit.  The possiblities for abuse here are immense.  I know this for certain because I've done it.  Even disregarding the obvious abuse of drawing enemy op-fire shots using invulnerable size 1 vehicles, I have driven size 1 jeeps down roads completely through enemy positions and gaining all that valuable recon (just load a scout team or, even better, a sniper into your invulnerable jeep and unload him at various key locations to look around as you leisurely tour the enemy positions).  It's been a while since I've used size 1 jeeps (although I have fond nostalgia), but I think I could remember other abuses given enough time to think about it.

Anyway, size 1 vehicles will result in game-play abuses.  That's a fact.

EDIT: Just remembered another abuse using size 1 vehicles. You are touring the enemy countyside in your invulnerable jeep when you come across an enemy pillbox in a position overlooking your route of advance. Simply unload your sniper and pop off a smoke round in front the pillbox, thus securing your route of advance safely and simply.

< Message edited by vahauser -- 9/19/2007 2:13:03 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 23
RE: Some Observations - 9/19/2007 2:10:22 AM   
Goblin


Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline 		Your original post stated 'better'. That is opinion.

I would argue that the statement, "Anyway, size 1 vehicles will result in game-play abuses. That's a fact." is also opinion, since the individual player decides what is 'abuse' and what is not. If a player likes playing with size one units, and uses them in their intended roles, he may not view it as abuse, thus the statement is not fact, but opinion based on your viewpoint, not his.

As I stated, I agree with you on the sizes, but the word 'fact' is not correct, as you merely state a viewpoint, not a fact (like Jeep is spelled 'Jeep', which is a statement of fact).

Also, I just wanted to pick on you some, Victor.  



_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 24
RE: Some Observations - 9/19/2007 2:27:32 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Goblin,

I understand you are poking fun. 

My point is that even today with size 2 Jeeps and kubelwagens, the Depot ACL has strict 'abuse guidelines' regarding the use of vehicles to draw enemy fire and other such abuses.  So abuses are indeed recognized as fact and not opinion.

But with size 1 vehicles the abuses become far worse.  You can actually hit a size 2 Jeep sometimes. 

Consider involuntary retreats by your Jeep that you have no control over.  Even by accident the size 1 Jeep can create game-balance problems.  Or consider you are playing PBEM and your finger accidentally slips on the mouse (and this has happened to everybody) and your size 1 Jeep goes racing into an unexplored region and triggers all sorts of events.  At least with a size 2 Jeep the effects of these kinds of game-balance accidents are minimized since the size 2 Jeep might get destroyed before the game-balance is seriously compromised.

I realize that you are not arguing with me here and that we are quibbling over semantics.  But if enough people have the same opinion, then that collective opinion can be turned into fact (such as the Depot ACL 'abuse guidelines' recognizing as fact that certain game-play abuses are truly facts and not opinions).  And clearly the man behind the curtain at Matrix who changed the default minimum size for vehicles to 2 recognized the abuses of size 1 vehicles as fact also and not opinion.

I'm willing to let this go now if you want.

EDIT: Ah, now I see what you are saying. I used the word 'better' in a post up above. The choice of that word was based on the concept that a game is, as an actual fact, better if it has fewer opportunities for abuse. And in terms of the gaming collective, this is actually a fact. An analogy: Our society sees murder as wrong, and that's a fact (our society does in fact see murder as wrong). So, in our society less murder is better. That's a fact. Now there are individuals within our collective society who disagree with our collective society and see nothing wrong with murder. But that doesn't change the fact that our collective society sees less murder as better than more murder. This analogy can be applied to game abuse in SPWAW. Simply substitute 'game abuse' for 'murder'.

< Message edited by vahauser -- 9/19/2007 2:52:30 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 25
RE: Some Observations - 9/19/2007 5:07:44 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline 		Calm down for a moment, vahauser. Lemme look at USMC jeeps --uh, ok, size 2. No one in their right mind is gonna lead an assault with a fleet of jeeps.

No one in their right mind is gonna lead an assault with a fleet of Kuebelwagens, either. Would you play against anyone that did that? I think not. Neither would anyone else.

You are assuming that hordes of SPWAW PBEM players will be abusing the present system and making a mockery of the game. I don't see that happening. You are tilting against windmills, man. Give it up. Post something relevant and useful.

Let's talk about the use of mines and how they are detrimental to a realistic SPWAW maneuver battle. How the AI suffers when they use them, and how the tempo of the battle suffers when they are employed, turning the game into a more-WWI type of positional battle dominated by artillery. For scenarios, mines are fine. For generated long campaigns, they are unecessary. The AI, on the defense, will replace these with bunkers and MG nests which must be individually reduced. Some of my buddies here just can't see that.

I bring that up because in not one instance of the Pacific War do I recall Marine engineers having to remove massive Japanese minefields -- they were scattered hither and thither. Thus, they are immaterial and can be disregarded. My choice suits my style of play. I've changed my OOBs to suit my style of play. Not everyone agrees with me. That's OK. No problem. Doesn't affect me one whit.



< Message edited by KG Erwin -- 9/19/2007 5:35:19 AM >

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 26
RE: Some Observations - 9/19/2007 5:31:43 AM   
Alby


Posts: 4855
Joined: 4/29/2000
From: Greenwood, Indiana
Status: offline 		French AMR 33 and AMR 35 and FT17 and FT31 tanks are Size 1.

Is all this about just these 4 vehicles, which no one probably hardly  ever uses anyway!??

I imagine these 4 got missed over the various oob edits and the numerous different oob teams...I dont see this as that big a deal, guess its just me.



< Message edited by Alby -- 9/19/2007 5:33:06 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 27
RE: Some Observations - 9/19/2007 5:38:44 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline 		Alby, just in the unlikely happenstance that the French AI would buy one of these in a German long campaign, I'm gonna change them to size 2. What difference it makes in the big picture is immaterial.

< Message edited by KG Erwin -- 9/19/2007 5:44:31 AM >

(in reply to Alby)
Post #: 28
RE: Some Observations - 9/19/2007 5:57:05 AM   
JEB Davis


Posts: 443
Joined: 12/27/2005
From: Michigan, U.T.B.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alby

French AMR 33 and AMR 35 and FT17 and FT31 tanks are Size 1.

Is all this about just these 4 vehicles, which no one probably hardly ever uses anyway!??

I imagine these 4 got missed over the various oob edits and the numerous different oob teams...I dont see this as that big a deal, guess its just me.



But it is a big deal, Alby. It's taken me this long to get over it enough to be able to post. Seriously though, I agree with you Vahauser that size 2 should be the minimum for vehicles.

_____________________________

Reduce SP:WaW slaughter, "Low Carnage":
Settings: 80Spot,80Hit,100R/R,XXXTQ,110TkT,150InfT,180AvSoft,130AvArm,150SOFire / Command & Ctrl ON / AutoRally OFF
Enhanced http://enhanced.freeforums.org
Depot https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/spwawdepot/

(in reply to Alby)
Post #: 29
RE: Some Observations - 9/19/2007 6:52:05 AM   
soldier

 

Posts: 199
Joined: 5/24/2005
Status: offline 		I'm pretty sure alby is correct, I havn't seen any other size 1 vehicles in the enhanced oobs. There are quite a few other odd sized units though, mainly AA guns or transport style units with various weapons or guns attached that probably date way back. I had already changed the French tanks back to size 2 and made a number of other corrections or fudges (depending on the alteration itself or your point of view), for a custom set of oobs before this post began. The problem is as stated before that size is largely subjective in the game. I remember trying to come with a formula for size based on length, width and height of the vehicle years ago but i gave up

(in reply to JEB Davis)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Some Observations Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.969