Improvements for SPWAW 5.0 :-)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Improvements for SPWAW 5.0 :-)

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 >> Improvements for SPWAW 5.0 :-)

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Improvements for SPWAW 5.0 :-) - 12/30/2000 7:24:00 AM

Harry

Posts: 85
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Aachen, Germany
Status: offline

Hi I have posted a similar message some time ago but here it comes again. Wishes: 1. Increase the probability of vehiclebreakdowns when moving through wood terrain. You can still move your tanks and halftracks at highspeed through woods. If you only can move very careful through like one hex a turn, then this will lead to new tactics. And I think they are more "realistic". You really need roads or open space for your tanks. The enemy knows that and he will set up ambushes, and you know that there are ambushes aso. This leads to point two: 2. What about new terraintypes? Light Wood, Heavy Wood, Scattered Trees. aso. 3. Remove the asterix! 4. More national characteristics. eg. German face a higher probability of weaponbreakdown and vehiclebreakdown in snow terrain with blizzard or something like that. 5. Add dud-ammo for bombs, artilleryshells, HE-shells, Panzerfaust, HEAT, aso. Maybe AT-Rounds also. 6. Well, more consistent OOBs. (in progress I know) This is only a small wish list, but there are more people out there. :-)

_____________________________

Post #: 1

- 12/30/2000 7:59:00 AM

skukko

Posts: 1928
Joined: 10/24/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

Why should you take asterisk away? I know there is more on this topic, but: I really use it to decoy. I let enemy see my killers and I let enemy to choose either fire everything on it or let it be. Fire it takes is away from weaker/important unit. Don't you see that this is reality. But I would like to have dogs in to the game for recon-units, guards etc. They were used to find mines, enemy ambushes and so on.. Movement is awesome. But it can be reduced by filling forests and dirt roads with rocks. mosh

_____________________________

salute

mosh

If its not rotten, shoot again

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 2

- 12/30/2000 8:27:00 AM

Tombstone

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline

It's still unrealistic, and it hurts the fog of war. It's not right to allow a player access to information he has no context to have. Tomo

_____________________________

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 3

- 12/30/2000 9:04:00 AM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

skukko: I've suggested

satchel-charge dogs in the game, and for some reason it hasn't caught on. I even made a few satchel-charge dog jokes and that still didn't carry the day

. I might've even volunteered my white Siberian Husky as the satchel-charge dog mascot and still nothing

.

_____________________________

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 4

- 12/30/2000 9:10:00 AM

Harry

Posts: 85
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Aachen, Germany
Status: offline

Please no asterix discussion here... go here: http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/003463.html [This message has been edited by Harry (edited December 29, 2000).]

_____________________________

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 5

- 12/30/2000 11:51:00 AM

chrisdolphinfan

Posts: 5
Joined: 4/24/2000
From: Ft.Worth, TX, USA
Status: offline

The main thing I would like to see, is for the "End of turn key and the end of game key" to be seperated. Too many games have been ended by hitting the wrong key and not realizing it. Great game!!!

_____________________________

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 6

- 12/30/2000 3:53:00 PM

Kharan

Posts: 505
Joined: 5/9/2000
Status: offline

If you crazy guys really are planning a new version... Bugs: -Guns should lose their shots after moving. -Fix low artillery smoke loadouts in online play. -Surrendering player shouldn't get points for his victory hexes. -Hide the arrival turn of special forces in deploy phase to prevent cheating. -Fix 4-player online games from freezing up Opinion bugs: -Halve the weapon breakdown rate and/or fasten repairs. -Triple the CBF effect. -Reduce ammo on heavy artillery batteries or up their prices. -Remove the spidey sense (*)

_____________________________

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 7

- 12/30/2000 7:31:00 PM

Gallo Rojo

Posts: 731
Joined: 10/26/2000
From: Argentina
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Tombstone: It's still unrealistic, and it hurts the fog of war. It's not right to allow a player access to information he has no context to have. Tomo

I think that a unit that beings spotted by the enemy had to pass a “experience” check before the “*” be shown. Although Asterisk is unrealistic in some way and makes ambushes very difficult against human opponents (except in woods or cities), I think but is a good idea that needs a little more work on it. The asterisk try to capture the idea that the unit could heard something (a tank column, voices or some like this) or “feels” some thing strange that indicate the enemy is closer . My idea is that this have to be related to the unit experience. I can understand that a veteran can “smell” the enemy, but I don’t believe that a green soldier can do so. And of course there’re some really unrealistic things about it: I remember to had a tank marked with an asterisk because it was spotted by a panzerfaust that was 18 hexes far away. This is to much!! May be the asterisk have to appear on a infantry unit when a tank is 3 hexes or closer although infantry can’t see it, in order to capture the idea that the infantry hears tank’s engine. I don’t know. There just some ideas...

_____________________________

The bayonet is a weapon with a worker on each end

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 8

- 12/30/2000 10:02:00 PM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

Kharen: On your idea about special forces. I think that this perhaps again goes back to the problems people often encounter when playing against other humans, that people will get gamey in order to win. But playing from a campaigner's perspective I would suggest the modification of your request to 'optional' masking of the arrival times instead. I've never known of the way to get gamey with the special forces, and though I did read it once, I ignored it and have been the better for it. The way I see it, this platoon will all be going together, assuming you're putting them within CC of each other at their infiltration point. As a campaigner, I need to know just when the first squad will see his buddies arrive, or else the infiltration is greatly compromised (his buddies could never arrive, or arrive too late contribute to the battle's overall effort). I know first instinct is probably to think that the first one there, wouldn't know when the others would arrive, but particularly if they have radios (I think the German commandos have a 90% rating there) the ones who find out they can't make it would radio that. As well, I would think there would be a number of occassions where they would at least try to stay within eyesight of each other (maybe just waving a hand over a bush and so on). I like the rest of your ideas, particularly the one about some way to limit the big artillery. I recall earlier versions actually had smaller ammunition stores for those units, generally speaking. I suppose people parking supply units by the artillery still would pose a problem however, but it seems most of the big stuff is off-map, therefore no resupply. On another note. You mentioned the breakdown rate. When I was playing Watchword Freedom, the breakdown rate wasn't too bad. That of course is a winter '44 battle as the Germans. Well, I kicked off a WWII campaign the other day as Gerry, and to compare it to WF, the breakdown rate was VERY high. My conclusion is that the breakdown rates are higher in '39, than they are in '44. It makes sense to me, because the armies were dealing with some fairly new ideas and equipment early on, but got more organized later. I could be wrong of course. Maybe it's just the early portion of the war that needs adjusting (and perhaps tweaking the latter portion less so)?

_____________________________

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 9

- 12/30/2000 10:51:00 PM

Kharan

Posts: 505
Joined: 5/9/2000
Status: offline

Charles22: The problem with special forces is that when you assign them in deploy phase, the arrival turn is shown in lower left screen and unit data screen. If it is T99, they will never arrive, and a player can cancel and reassign them. Solution would be to hide the arrival turn only in deploy phase and show it in the actual battle or not to rerandomize the arrival turn when reassigned. The weapon breakdown issue is a evasive one... On several battles I've lost half my tank guns in the first engagement, yet in testing it seems to occur rarely. It could be a lot of opportunity fire that is increasing the chances greatly. Anyway, I'd go for faster weapon repair times. I don't think I've ever seen a weapon getting repaired, as opposed to a lot of immobility repairs which infact should take more time.

_____________________________

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 10

- 12/31/2000 12:30:00 AM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

Kharan: One could always not cancel the infiltration (now I know how to do it, what a spoiler). Anyway, you sure have fine-honed your request, just masking it in deployment solves the problem. The only problem might be for scenario designers, that is if they really want a 100% infiltration, but still have to go with the random factor, but then again, scenario designers can probably place anything, anywhere they want, to even deal with this commando thing. We're agreeing 100%, I too prefer a higher repair rate, more specifically to the weapons, than tinkering with the breakdown rate. I wonder if the early war years do see higher breakdown rates? It would also be interesting if the repair rate were increased, that it would be further increased if the vehicle were unspotted (which would encourage moving vehicles to some rear place). OTOH, for my perspective, I have to remember that though something may sound neat, to me, the individual, just how would such an option affect the AI? I doubt the AI would be willing to go to the rear, therefore giving me one more unneeded advantage.

_____________________________

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 11

- 12/31/2000 12:31:00 AM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 12

- 12/31/2000 2:13:00 AM

Cona

Posts: 137
Joined: 9/9/2000
From: Penco, Chile
Status: offline

If we are talking about SPWAW 5.0, the VCR should be improved too. Sighted enemy units must be shown by the VCR, and the path they followed. This way, you can do a good guess about the final destination of the unit. And you can simulate an attack to fool your enemy. Feliz A�o Nuevo a todos, Cona.

_____________________________

"War is much too serious to be entrusted to the military." - Tallyrand

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 13

- 12/31/2000 7:02:00 AM

skukko

Posts: 1928
Joined: 10/24/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

Cona: Maybe if the game is going to be Online. Full. But afterall we all think so slow that we'll have to have one game that ain't such 'Red Alert' copy? Or what are we talking? As a future of this game I'll like to have it as it is, but bugs fixed. I don't want another 'rush 'em all' game from this one. It goes to the woods. I know that in the WW2 there were volunteers asked to go first to be seen, so that other could move safely to better positions. Without the asterisk we can build a game that is merely like 'Sudden Strike' or some of that kind. This is not because of asterisk, but whole *ucking future and development of this Great Game. Bugs can be fixed? Yes. How far can The game be enhanced without turning it to something that looses its ability to live in our, gamers, hands? Guys have done great job on their own time to get this 4.5 so far to our hands. From the first Matrix release it has been just bug -war, and I mean it in good mind. We can ask them to fix one or two bug, but before asking it, we should ask: Do we demand a new game? Forgive me to get heat on this, but I'm that kind of a guy who sometimes think futher that understand. Some one just had to say this out. mosh

_____________________________

salute

mosh

If its not rotten, shoot again

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 14

- 12/31/2000 7:32:00 AM

Blackbird

Posts: 80
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Varazdin, Croatia
Status: offline

Well, Kharan did mention all of most important things, except for this:

quote:

Originally posted by Harry: 1. Increase the probability of vehiclebreakdowns when moving through wood terrain. You can still move your tanks and halftracks at highspeed through woods.

That would be cool, but as I can see the probability of vehicle breakdowns is not connected to speed of them. And it should be, mostly at max speeds.

_____________________________

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 15

- 12/31/2000 7:42:00 AM

Harry

Posts: 85
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Aachen, Germany
Status: offline

Hi Skukko. This thread is not intended to force someone to do a new version tomorrow. This is intended to give ideas for future improvements and when it take a year to do them or never. I can wait. No one will minimize the major effort done by the matix team and their helpers. And when one day matrix do not want to contionue to support this game then there will be other gamers that want to continue their work if they are allowed to do that. And when on one day the bugs are eliminated then you will think "how can this game developed further?" then it is time for new ideas. This ideas may come form this forum. There are so much potential people out there and when this code would be free, we can all profit form them. An "extreme" example is the guy who unterstand and improved the stolen source code from Falcon 4.0. So since Matrix has the code we have to tell them our ideas and wishes. Herwig

_____________________________

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 16

- 12/31/2000 8:52:00 AM

Cona

Posts: 137
Joined: 9/9/2000
From: Penco, Chile
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by skukko: Guys have done great job on their own time to get this 4.5 so far to our hands. From the first Matrix release it has been just bug -war, and I mean it in good mind. We can ask them to fix one or two bug, but before asking it, we should ask: Do we demand a new game? Forgive me to get heat on this, but I'm that kind of a guy who sometimes think futher that understand. Some one just had to say this out.

Skukko: I used to be a programmer, so i know well of the effort that the boys of Matrix are making so that we enjoy this wonderful game. But this topic is kind of a brainstorm where to contribute ideas for what each one believes will be a better SPWAW. When I play PBEM (and I have not played a lot) I can always see (in the version 4.5) the exchanges of shots between my units and the enemy, but I cannot see the enemy units moving it faces of mine neither to know that they made it although they have been seen by several of my units if they begin and they finish their movement in some hexagon where they are hidden to the eyes of my troops. Do you understand me? It is for this reason that I think that the VCR should be improved. Each idea that each one contributes here, can and should be a contribution to the future games that Matrix develops or improve. It is our duty to reward Matrix contributing ideas (and money, in an unknown future) and it is responsibility of Matrix to write down them and to consider them in each opportunity. That's how i see this. I may be wrong. Happy new year to all, Cona. [This message has been edited by Cona (edited December 30, 2000).]

_____________________________

"War is much too serious to be entrusted to the military." - Tallyrand

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 17

- 12/31/2000 9:25:00 AM

FatFred

Posts: 7
Joined: 12/9/2000
From: Pittsburg P.A.
Status: offline

good input . The Thing I agree with you most is the astrick part .. How real is it to be moving your forces and say oh Ive been spotted I better move more carefull until I find out whats spotting me . you shouldn't know your spotted until you have been shot at , or have been destroyed by that ambush you never expected to be there fatfred

_____________________________

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 18

- 12/31/2000 9:55:00 AM

Christophe Jaureguiberry

Posts: 113
Joined: 10/6/2000
From: Jakarta, Indonesia
Status: offline

I would like to have more elevation levels. In fact, I'd like to have free (no restrictions) elevation levels. For example, instead of having three buttons for level 1,2 and 3, we could have only an elevation "+" and elevation "-" button. Additonally by pressing one of these 2 buttons, we could also input directly the desired elevation (right-click on "+", type 55 and voila). This would enable us to create scenarios in mountainous terrain. Regards, Christophe

_____________________________

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 19

- 12/31/2000 10:07:00 AM

David Heath

Posts: 3274
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Staten Island NY
Status: offline

Hi Guys The staff and myself read these and all the forums at Matrix everyday. Your ideas and request are what we work on. Now I have no problem with asking for new features but I want to point out to Skukko that it has not been just bug fixes since its release of v4.0. We have added or adjusted many of the games features as well as fix a number of bugs. So keep the requests flying and we keep plugging away. David

_____________________________

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 20

- 12/31/2000 9:23:00 PM

Alby

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

1.German Wuferman40 rocket battery 100 pts cheaper than 81mm mortars? 200 cheaper than 120s doesnt seem right seeing how lethal those babies are..Only Arty unit that regularly destroys tanks. 2. Elefants waaaaay to cheap, much cheaper than jadgpanther, doesnt seem right either... 3. Snipers and crews that carry only rifle assualting tanks...with ?, I had a sniper destroy a greyhound with one shot from kar rifle... 4. Crewman on OT34 carry flamethrowers, possible i guess if they rip one out of the tank before exiting... 5. After deploying spec ops troops, you can right click on them to see which turn they will arrive, If they have turn99 you know they wont make it, so just cancel mission and redo until you get something other than turn99 allowing ALL spec ops to infiltrate, This needs fixing. 6. why does AA seem to always hit strike aircraft, but misses those big lumbering cargo planes?

_____________________________

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 21

- 1/1/2001 12:54:00 AM

rexmonday

Posts: 119
Joined: 7/4/2000
Status: offline

How about a hotkey for save game that can be used during the AI's turn (yeah, I know, I'm a wuss for playing against the machine)? It can be mighty annoying to have an infantry ambush all set up for the oncoming tanks when the doorbell starts to ring...

_____________________________

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 22

- 1/1/2001 11:15:00 AM

kao16

Posts: 311
Joined: 4/10/2000
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Status: offline

Given the problems associated with the steel.prf file: How about, when you first start the game have either an overlay dialog box saying "do you wish to delete existing steel.prf yes/ no" - return = yes, or add another button to the menu: "delete existing steel.prf". About breakdowns and repairs: how about adding options similar to troop quality etc so that individual can customise: Turn it on/off, Designed defaults vs customised values for each side based on user's own valuation (turn them up/down to suit).

_____________________________

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 23

- 1/1/2001 10:50:00 PM

Posts: 8
Joined: 12/16/2000
From: Paris, France
Status: offline

Could it be possible to have separate "number of kills": one for tank kills and one for other kills? In that way, it will be possible to really measure the performances of our tankers and compare them to famous "Tank Aces" like Wittmann and others. ------------------ "Qui voit le ciel dans l'eau voit les poissons sur les arbres"

_____________________________

"Qui voit le ciel dans l'eau voit les poissons sur les arbres"

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 24

- 1/2/2001 12:40:00 AM

jaro

Posts: 44
Joined: 10/5/2000
From: Slovakia
Status: offline

Some ideas: 1.Why Long Campaign ends in March 1945 and not in May 1945? 2.About Victory flags in Long Campaign.Meeting Engagments are very easy.You just stop at middle objectives and shoot everything what AI send at you.(with Tiger's or Panthers it is a Turkey shooting).I had played every Steel Panthers game(I,II,III,WaW),but most interesting meeting engagment i played 29-30.12 2000.Those first batles in Victors hard campaign were most hardest fighting i ever saw.So what about use similar victory flags placement in long campaign meeting engagments too?5.What about make some limitation's in long campaign for Poland in 1939? I want play a Blitzkrieg and game give me a defend misions. 3.Why in WaW isn't enemy Counteratack or continue attacking function like in SPI or SPII? In ww2 many units never has a original number of tanks.They were in repairs or destroied but in long campaign you fight one battle for a month with complete repaired stuff.

_____________________________

Jaro Jakubov

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 25

- 1/2/2001 12:53:00 AM

Kharan

Posts: 505
Joined: 5/9/2000
Status: offline

You could add a limit for AI's air sections (about 8 sections?). No sane player would use most his points on aircraft, but the AI would. Armored cars run away from tanks. Can crews be made to automatically run away from *any* combat troops that come closer than 3 hexes? This would solve the tank busting crews-problem and also limit their use as cannon fodder and scouts. One new (or reintroduced) feature I would like is that the game would randomly add 1-3 turns at the end of each battle.

_____________________________

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 26

- 1/2/2001 1:26:00 AM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

I definitely agree with jaro when he said:

quote:

3.Why in WaW isn't enemy Counteratack or continue attacking function like in SPI or SPII?

I think it would add more decisions (almost always good), and I have played and enjoyed that. It seems to me that SP1 didn't have this, but that it was SP3 instead. I wouldn't know of SP2 had it or not.

_____________________________

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 27

- 1/2/2001 6:30:00 AM

Pave

Posts: 35
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Espoo, Finland
Status: offline

-Weight limits for bridges -Ice (can be braken with arty) -Triggered events ("a bridge blows up at turn X", "if you enter this hex Y, a bunch of Tigers appear at hex Z",...) Commandoes could place time bombs/booby traps/mines in places. I have had a couple of situations were I could have used these. -You can make a smoke screen in desert by moving a vehicle and undoing it (repeat this). Remove this bug (maybe no undo?) -Right camouflage in different environment. Now I have yellow/green tanks in winter. -Maybe you could link the train cars (like a linked list). Only the engine can be moved, but moving it will cause that the car linked to it will move to hex were the engine was before. The second car linked to the first car moves to hex were #1 car was and so on. The engine (and thus train cars) can move only on hexes with railway and no shell holes (rail broken). Destroying a car/engine breaks one link. Those new icons and pics for units in 4.5 are nice (many thanks for that). Unfortunately, very little was done to the errors in unit information. My first wish is that please could someone check all the units in every OOB and fix the pictures and errors. Things like an aircraft with 20 guns and no ammo or Jackson with useless APCR ammo are nasty. Anyway, the game is already great and much better that I ever imagined SP series game could be. Thanks.

_____________________________

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 28

- 1/2/2001 8:24:00 AM

rexmonday

Posts: 119
Joined: 7/4/2000
Status: offline

Re. the message above about long campaigns ending in March 1945 - I haven't got this far in SPWAW, but seem to remember that in SP1 the same happened - what about the fight against the Japanese... does this finish for VE day as well, instead of going on to VJ day? I know this would be easy to check with a simple test, but I don't have SPWAW on this machine.

_____________________________

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 29

- 1/2/2001 6:24:00 PM

Harry

Posts: 85
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Aachen, Germany
Status: offline

This one came to my mind reading the "Infantery Assault" Topic and some own eyperience in PBEMs: I have HIT a tank five times 15 hexes away with a 50 cal HMG. The status still reads "ready" not "buttoned". Ok button up should be based on experience but 5 times of hitting ? So what about making button up not based on suppresion points? And then the crew should not open up in the next turn. Lets say after the get hit there has to be a timeperiod in wich they are not fired on, then they open up. But if you then regulary spray them with MG-fire. They will stay buttoned.

_____________________________

(in reply to Harry)

Post #: 30