Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

 
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 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 1/9/2003 1:22:31 AM   
VikingNo2


Posts: 2918
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: NC
Status: offline 		Wow, that would certianly change the argument:eek:

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 91
- 1/9/2003 1:47:13 AM   
tracer


Posts: 1865
Joined: 11/22/2000
From: New Smyrna Beach, FL USA
Status: offline 		Elsewhere, Goblin pointed something out that should be mentioned here (paraphrased): a rifleman can hit a house at 1000yds....all direct-fire guns in the game can throw a round farther than listed. On bazookas: "They are allowing one class of weapons to go to max, and the rest used at max effective".

Just my $0.02, but that's a pretty good argument for dropping the range.

_____________________________

Jim NSB

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 92
- 1/9/2003 1:53:27 AM   
rbrunsman


Posts: 1837
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline 		Boy! I miss this thread for a day and it gets too big to even respond to everything mentioned. I'll just second what Golbin says (except I'll still read this thread). And, I agree with most of what V2 says (grudgingly since I owe him a payback:mad: ).

I also respectfully request that people stop saying, "Play with C&C ON." Most of us don't want to, so that argument doesn't help. We understand that C&C ON makes for a more realistic battle, but after all SPWAW is a game and I want the freedom of movement allowed with C&C Off. I like the "game" part of the experience. I just want to easily know what an even battle is. The system doesn't even have to be changed at all if someone would be so kind as to say, "For US v GE do this..." "For GE v Russia do this..." etc. The way H2H is now, x pts vs x pts does not equal an even battle.

And, Bazookas are still too powerful in H2H (couldn't help myeself).;)

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 93
C&C - 1/9/2003 4:22:31 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, OK I'll stop suggesting people use C&C. But then you will all have too stop saying the points are unbalanced.
I have always had a difficult time explaining things on the internet.
C&C what does it mean? Why would players use or not use it?
How does it impact the cost of units?

If units cost more because they are more effective with C&C on versus C&C off then I suppose the pricing could be rewritten for C&C off battles. C&C on effects the way units move, how they recover from fatigue and how often they fire, what they can fire at. Blah blah blah. Nothing important enough to consider.
Saying there is no differance between C&C battle off or on is silly.
You decide to buy forces from a country that has strong C&C attributes and fight a country with weak C&C attribute. Then you turn C&C off and complain about unbalanced results?????

Before you all agree this has no effect how about some of you playing a few small battles with C&C on and posting results?

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 94
- 1/9/2003 4:50:21 AM   
john g

 

Posts: 984
Joined: 10/6/2000
From: college station, tx usa
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Voriax
[B]As the bazookas seem to crop up in here...can *anyone* give me a reference that says there was HE ammo for bazookas during WW2???

I've seen a picture of one test round that had 2 handgrenades as payload, but afaik that never came to use.

I've been thinking about removing HE ammo from all units that have bazookas...

Voriax [/B][/QUOTE]

I think in the past that the he capability of bazookas was given because of the WP round it could fire, in addition to the explosive effect the heat warhead had on surrounding troops. It had the reputation of not focusing as much of the force forward as the more efficient panzerfaust and panzershrek.

I can recall reading more than once how bazookas were used vs infantry.
thanks, John.

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 95
- 1/9/2003 4:57:30 AM   
Voriax

 

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Ok, did the WP round exist during WW2? Intro date and availability?

In the thread 'What US tanker..' I started is a link to a certain site. In this site a engineer officer mentions that in tests a round from US Bazooka generally did not explode when it hit the ground. That's not really effective against infantry.

I'm sure both bazookas and panzerschrecks were regularly used against infantry, but with what rounds...

Voriax

_____________________________

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

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 96
- 1/9/2003 5:03:59 AM   
Panzer Leo

 

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Goblin
[B]1.) TREES? VISIBILITY? WEATHER? You show me how to get 2000m sight range every time, and I will. Sucked because they got within 500m? I won't respond to that.[/B][/QUOTE]

Uhhh...didn't know Goblins are that thin-skinned... :D

No more grumbling posts in the morning before first coffee, I promise :rolleyes:

May I suggest you take a designed map of vast Russian steppes like severals are flying around and chanllenge someone to battle your '44 Germans on that...it feels great to command a Nashorn in it's true field of action...
For generated battles, I ofcourse understand your problems...


[QUOTE][B]
2.) A mortar round lands and explodes next to the tank. A bazooka round, if it misses, zips past the tank. The crew may not even realize it was fired at them. My complaint is not the suppression, but how much suppression small arms cause. "Buttoned Up" and suppression are two different things in the game.[/B][/QUOTE]

True for short distance, but at 500m that thing comes in at a pretty good arc...should land at least somewhere in the same hex (50*50m)


[QUOTE][B]
3.) 500m is realistic for bazooka shots on tanks!?!?!?!?!?!?!?![/B][/QUOTE]

Not the shot at a tank, but a hit is pretty unrealistic...


[QUOTE][B]
4.) For a bunch of people not trying to insult someone, you have all done a pretty **** fine job. I won't even come back to this thread again.[/B][/QUOTE]

...so you probably don't even read this one and all the typing was for nothing...:(


Hihi, o.k. serious now...I think my raising of the morale will slightly reduce the suppression for tankers done by small arms and Bazooka rounds, but not much...there's nothing I can do about it, it's the **** old thing with the coding...

The thing with the ranges...none of the weapons has it's maximum reachable range, it's all max effective (or supposed to be)...PIATs traveled 700m, Bazookas and Panzerschrecks even up to 1000m...the RW Pueppchen used the same 88mm rocket as did the PzSchreck and being a more stable mount reached considerable far ranges for anti-personel or area fire...

I will do further tests with these weapons and see how they behave in the game...

The other question about the HE ammo...for PIATs there was a special HE round, but I don't know how often it was used...for the Bazooka I don't know (some White Phosphor and so...) and for the PanzerSchreck I can say there was no special HE round...
BUT...a HEAT round is a HE round with lesser splinter effect...the blast is strong enough to be valuable against soft targets and the cap and body of the rocket produce some fragments to go around...in the game you will see them take out one enemy the most per shot...that's realistic and should stay that way...the Germans made extensive use of all AT-rockets (especially PzFausts) against personell (as did the Russians with captured ones)...there were much more PzFausts fired at troops then at tanks...

But keep up complaining, Goblin...that I give you some contra here does not mean I think you're wrong...I just need to squeeze out some arguments here to make me feel better when changing things... ;)

_____________________________

[URL=http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/spwaw_h2h_modrework.php] [IMG]http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/PzLeos-H2H-Title-1.jpg[/IMG] [/URL]

Mir nach, ich folge euch !

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 97
Re: C&C - 1/9/2003 5:06:26 AM   
rbrunsman


Posts: 1837
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, OK I'll stop suggesting people use C&C. But then you will all have too stop saying the points are unbalanced.
I have always had a difficult time explaining things on the internet.
C&C what does it mean? Why would players use or not use it?
How does it impact the cost of units?

If units cost more because they are more effective with C&C on versus C&C off then I suppose the pricing could be rewritten for C&C off battles. C&C on effects the way units move, how they recover from fatigue and how often they fire, what they can fire at. Blah blah blah. Nothing important enough to consider.
Saying there is no differance between C&C battle off or on is silly.
You decide to buy forces from a country that has strong C&C attributes and fight a country with weak C&C attribute. Then you turn C&C off and complain about unbalanced results?????

Before you all agree this has no effect how about some of you playing a few small battles with C&C on and posting results? [/B][/QUOTE]

Nobody is suggesting there isn't a difference with C&C on or off. Of course, there is a huge difference. Where are you seeing that assertion? The point is that more people play with C&C off, so it makes sense to make the battles easier for us (the majority) to play than you "C&C on" guys (the minority). SPWAW is a [U]game[/U] with C&C off and more of a [U]simulation[/U] with C&C on. More people want a game than want a simulation, so cater to the gamers. That's my point. H2H is not a very good game as it stands, whereas it may be a great simulation.

And another thing while I'm bitching again:
Bazookas shooting at max range with effect should be stopped. Hitting a house is nothing like hitting a vehicle (even a big vehicle) at 1000 yards.

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 98
Majority wins - 1/9/2003 5:38:32 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I have no problem with games. Only I think if a system is designed to be a simulation then when it does not work as a game rather then say it is broke the players should alter their style.
To be a good game and remove all claims of unbalance all you need do is have both sides use the same source.
Since you don't care about historical realism who cares if Germans fight Germans? There can be no doubt about fairness. Both sides have the exact same pool to draw on.

For persons who would rather fight WW2 battles then I suggest the C&C rules are very important in reproducing realisim. The points are based on how units react using the C&C rules.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 99
Off Topic... sorry - 1/9/2003 5:46:55 AM   
Lars

 

Posts: 205
Joined: 7/19/2000
From: Västerås, Sweden
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by rbrunsman
[B]The point is that more people play with C&C off, so it makes sense to make the battles easier for us (the majority) to play than you "C&C on" guys (the minority). [/B][/QUOTE]

I must say that I really respect all of you players, that often fills this interesting forum with your chat. But you really have to play a lot of people to know that C&C off is the majorities choice, (I remember back when the game only had been downloaded about 20'000 times ;) ).
In all off my challenges with other players, which should be about 15, only one preferred C&C off. That OTOH doesn't say that C&C ON is the majority's choice...

/Lars

_____________________________

:D Plays for fun! :cool:


[img]http://publish.hometown.aol.com/kenkbaran/images/spwaw-virtual-b-o-b2.jpg [/img]
[img]http://www.redzoneforums.com/images/avatars/gia

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 100
come back, Goblin, Come back! - 1/9/2003 6:36:27 AM   
Tomanbeg

 

Posts: 4385
Joined: 7/14/2000
From: Memphis, Tn, CSA
Status: offline 		Originally posted by rbrunsman
[B]Boy! I miss this thread for a day and it gets too big to even respond to everything mentioned. I'll just second what Golbin says (except I'll still read this thread). And, I agree with most of what V2 says (grudgingly since I owe him a payback:mad: ).

I also respectfully request that people stop saying, "Play with C&C ON." Most of us don't want to, so that argument doesn't help. We understand that C&C ON makes for a more realistic battle, but after all SPWAW is a game and I want the freedom of movement allowed with C&C Off. I like the "game" part of the experience. I just want to easily know what an even battle is. The system doesn't even have to be changed at all if someone would be so kind as to say, "For US v GE do this..." "For GE v Russia do this..." etc. The way H2H is now, x pts vs x pts does not equal an even battle.

And, Bazookas are still too powerful in H2H (couldn't help myeself).;) [/B]

If you want an even battle, play with C&C on. That is all I am trying to say. I'm not trying to insulte anyone (I do that on the AoW forum only, where it is expected and appreciated). I am just pointing out a fact. Just as you did when you pointed out that more people play with it off thenwith it on. C&C on is the answer. You may not like that answer, but that doesn't make it a wrong answer. And I am not trying to be snobbish. If you feel that I am, ok. You are in charge of your feelings and I wouldn't change them even if I could. I would consider that an invasion of your privacy. I have ran enough tests to determine that the AI is not rigged (IE: it doesn't cheat), to my satisfaction. If you keep fooling around, you might get lucky and find a way. Meanwhile I will be using the method built into the game. And C&C done properly really doesn't curtail your movent if you plan ahead.
Sort of like what an 'actual' does.
T.

_____________________________

"The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead."
– The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.
[IMG]http

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 101
Once apon a time - 1/9/2003 6:40:06 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Boy the times really do change. There was a time when to suggest SPWaW was a game and not a simulation would have produced a 10 page thread in around 2 hours.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 102
- 1/9/2003 7:07:16 AM   
rbrunsman


Posts: 1837
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline 		IT"S A GAME. IT'S A GAME. IT'S A GAME. :D

I love SPWAW and my fragile sensitivities are happy that you guys haven't just called me an idiot and been done with me. I propose we agree to disagree.

But please look at my original post and explain how 124 pts of german infantry can compete with 124 points of US Infantry whether C&C is on or not.

I said:
"In June of 1941 for 124 pts you can buy ONE Regular German Infantry Platoon (1HQ of 5 men, 4 Squads of 10 men each) or you can buy TWO US Platoons composed of 1 HQ of 5 men and 3 squads of 12 men each) and still have 18 pts left over to buy a .30 cal MG Recon Jeep (with armor of 4 in front)! That works out to 45 Germans against 82 US troops plus a Jeep!!!"

Can the Germans really win against that because their C&C so so much better?

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 103
test it!!! - 1/9/2003 7:09:04 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Why don't you test it? find someone and play a 500 point battle. The results might be interesting

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 104
- 1/9/2003 8:31:17 AM   
tracer


Posts: 1865
Joined: 11/22/2000
From: New Smyrna Beach, FL USA
Status: offline 		Why does the word schism keep popping into my mind when I read these C&C threads? :rolleyes:

_____________________________

Jim NSB

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 105
Sweet irony - 1/9/2003 8:36:47 AM   
tracer


Posts: 1865
Joined: 11/22/2000
From: New Smyrna Beach, FL USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, Boy the times really do change. There was a time when to suggest SPWaW was a game and not a simulation would have produced a 10 page thread in around 2 hours. [/B][/QUOTE]

LOL!! :D :D Kinda reminds me of the book '1984': "we're at war with Eurasia and have [I]always[/I] been at war with Eurasia".

_____________________________

Jim NSB

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 106
It depends - 1/9/2003 12:33:44 PM   
Tomanbeg

 

Posts: 4385
Joined: 7/14/2000
From: Memphis, Tn, CSA
Status: offline 		Originally posted by rbrunsman
[B]IT"S A GAME. IT'S A GAME. IT'S A GAME. :D

I love SPWAW and my fragile sensitivities are happy that you guys haven't just called me an idiot and been done with me. I propose we agree to disagree.

But please look at my original post and explain how 124 pts of german infantry can compete with 124 points of US Infantry whether C&C is on or not.

I said:
"In June of 1941 for 124 pts you can buy ONE Regular German Infantry Platoon (1HQ of 5 men, 4 Squads of 10 men each) or you can buy TWO US Platoons composed of 1 HQ of 5 men and 3 squads of 12 men each) and still have 18 pts left over to buy a .30 cal MG Recon Jeep (with armor of 4 in front)! That works out to 45 Germans against 82 US troops plus a Jeep!!!"

Can the Germans really win against that because their C&C so so much better? [/B]

Maybe not, but 1200 points of German Infantry in '43 will eat 1200 points of US infantry for lunch. When your US infantry is stuck and can't move or dig in because they are out of points, the germans will still be going strong. The big difference is in the company commanders. They normally carry enough points to help a platoon leader get his platoon moving, and still be able to call in arty requests. With an American Platoon, it is critical that the plotoon stay within that 5 hex contact range, because the platoon leader normally doesn't carry enough points to both move over to a 'out of contact' squad and still give his platoon orders. So you have a 250 meter frontage for an american platoon. OTOH the kraut Platoon leader can give his platoon orders and then spend another cp to move to the 'out of contact' unit and repeat the orders. I can cover 300 to 400 meters with a german platoon, most of the time. So you can cover 15 hexes with your company of 3 platoons. I can cover the same area with 2 platoons and attack with the third. When you throw in combined arms, it gets worse. German Panzer commanders normally have enough cp's to put their tanks in a defend status between bounds. As you know this will give the hull down bonus in certain terrain. The .1 arty time for the US doesn't mean as much when you don't have the cp's to request it.
T.

_____________________________

"The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead."
– The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.
[IMG]http

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 107
- 1/9/2003 12:46:13 PM   
rbrunsman


Posts: 1837
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline 		I thought the Germans had terrible communications capability compared to the Americans (a radio in every hand). Is C&C not modeling that?

Also, it seems to me, that as the American commander, as long as I keep my platoons together, I would crush the Germans given an equal number of points. It is still 82 US men against 45 Germans. I wouldn't want those odds against an equally skilled foe.

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 108
- 1/9/2003 6:31:20 PM   
Panzer Leo

 

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by rbrunsman
[B]IT"S A GAME. IT'S A GAME. IT'S A GAME. :D

I love SPWAW and my fragile sensitivities are happy that you guys haven't just called me an idiot and been done with me. I propose we agree to disagree.

But please look at my original post and explain how 124 pts of german infantry can compete with 124 points of US Infantry whether C&C is on or not.

I said:
"In June of 1941 for 124 pts you can buy ONE Regular German Infantry Platoon (1HQ of 5 men, 4 Squads of 10 men each) or you can buy TWO US Platoons composed of 1 HQ of 5 men and 3 squads of 12 men each) and still have 18 pts left over to buy a .30 cal MG Recon Jeep (with armor of 4 in front)! That works out to 45 Germans against 82 US troops plus a Jeep!!!"

Can the Germans really win against that because their C&C so so much better? [/B][/QUOTE]

Maybe I didn't make it clear, but that German infantry will be reduced in costs in the patch is already carved in stone...I'm tweaking and testing on how much, but that's just fine tuning...responses from testers have been good sofar and I think you will be able to live with that result :D
You found a valid point and by now I think the infantry cost problem can solve most of the balancing problems (except for the 65/70 jump ofcourse...)

BTW, if I recall right, someone was asking what to do with the purchase and this jump...

the jump is noticed the most, if one side has 70 or 75 and the other 60 or 65 as base...
I would suggest 20% more pts in case of 70 to 65 for the 70 nation and 10% in case of 75 to 65 or 70 to 60...needs further testing, but that should meet it statistically in value pts.

_____________________________

[URL=http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/spwaw_h2h_modrework.php] [IMG]http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/PzLeos-H2H-Title-1.jpg[/IMG] [/URL]

Mir nach, ich folge euch !

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 109
- 1/9/2003 10:41:42 PM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline 		Mogami:
quote:

There was a time when to suggest SPWaW was a game and not a simulation would have produced a 10 page thread in around 2 hours.


I'm one of those that thinks it's a simulation. I would also like to call to mind that the original SP was never about H2H unless you're talking hotseat.

I really tire of hearing all those more inclined to the AOE perspective trying to make a game out of a simulation, but OTOH what goes around comes around. It doesn't take too much vision to see the other side of the fence. I'm sure the gamers are just as tired of the invasions brought against AOE by those history/simulation nuts as the other way around with SP renditions. As far as I'm concerned, as good as the internet can be for communication, it is to blame for all these games that started out being one thing and end up being some wishy-washy mishmash. And I'm not going to leave the multi-player experience versus the single player experience out of it either, because we constantly see games that are designed for single player that end up getting "balanced" because so many people think there's something wrong with someone designing single player only and not evolving it into some balanced mishmash for those H2H types.

I like your comment about picking the same nation for those wanting balance because it's the only sensible method of achieving it. I applaud those who made a single player game and kept it that way despite people who complain about AI, etc., trying to make it's something it's not. I also applaud those who made a multi-player type game and kept it that way. The writing is on the wall and you can't make a game that is both single player and multi-player/H2H superlative. One or the other is just going to suffer badly, simple as that.

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 110
- 1/10/2003 12:18:46 AM   
rbrunsman


Posts: 1837
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panzer Leo
[B]You found a valid point and by now I think the infantry cost problem can solve most of the balancing problems (except for the 65/70 jump ofcourse...)

BTW, if I recall right, someone was asking what to do with the purchase and this jump...

the jump is noticed the most, if one side has 70 or 75 and the other 60 or 65 as base...
I would suggest 20% more pts in case of 70 to 65 for the 70 nation and 10% in case of 75 to 65 or 70 to 60...needs further testing, but that should meet it statistically in value pts. [/B][/QUOTE]

This may be a basic question, but where do I look to see/modify the experience ratings while setting up a battle? As far as I can tell, the base experience rating is random. I'm playing an H2H right now where I bought 2 Forward Observers and one of them has an 80 experience rating which makes him as good as the US at calling arty quickly. The other observer is just average at ~72 experience. That one FO could turn the battle all by himself since he can call arty so quickly and it was random as far as I can tell.

It seems to me it would be better just to avoid having armies on either side of the 70 experience point threshhold fighting each other unless you specifically wanted that situation. So I would like to be able to ensure it.

Thanks for the tip on how to balance forces.

As a gamer, I just don't see the fun in a US v US or GE v GE battle all the time. Sometimes but not always. Variety is the spice of life. :)

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 111
Christ Almighty... - 1/10/2003 12:26:18 AM   
Orzel Bialy


Posts: 2664
Joined: 4/4/2002
From: Wisconsin USA
Status: offline 		I read this thread when it first started...and stayed away because I had a gut feeling it would spiral out of control.

So...being the guy I am...I'm going to chime in and leave it alone.

1st...
Panzer Leo...I like a lot of things you did with your Mod but like everything in the world it's not perfect. (and I know you don't claim it to be)
However, you errorred badly by saying that a player "sucked" if they allowed a bazooka team to get within 500 yards of a tank. With high grass, rough ground, trees, smoke and what not being as much a part of the game as the ON/OFF features...that was lame statement to make. Sorry.
I don't mean to re-hash the whole bazooka range affair...but needless to say...there aren't many references or footage of soldiers firing M9's at something 500 yards away....especially when the "effective" range was just around 100-125 yards if not closer! Just because something "could" hit something at that range...shouldn't mean that's it's accepted range. Anyway...

2nd...
CnC. Ok then, here's the jist of it. Not everyone likes CnC ON. It doesn't make anyone superior for using it or inferior for not using it...anyone spouting that crap needs to check their tongues at the door.
Do I use it when I play SPWAW and want a historical campaign or battle? YES.
Do I use it in Pbem's where I want to get my bang for the buck? NO.

3rd
All the other ON/OFF issues and settings. The one reason I stayed away from this post was the crap I saw being spouted from time to time on settings.
There were people claiming that others should learn how to play the game "correctly"...yet they themselves were "cooking the books" while they ran off at the mouth.
How / What? You may ask? Well, to talk up a storm about the reality factor of something like CnC and then do something like switch True/Rarity OFF is a real joke in my book!
Let's face it...there are a lot of players out there that use the "cheap cheat" just like Gob and Rbrunsman eluded to. They buy a ton of cheap, yet effective units (bazooka/PF/PS teams) and put them in 30 jeeps/Kw's or 50 HT's and then send them on their way to cause havoc.
Some say "novel approach"....but it's hardly that when you also talk about the reality of the battlefield out of the other corner of your mouth.
If you switch off True/Rarity...then anyone who rags on others about CnC have no ground to speak. To me it's the biggest cheat in the game...but that's just me....right up there with picking and setting your own experience factors instead of fighting with what the AI gives you.

I don't mean to blanket cover everyone with these statements...but those of you that speak out and yet do some of these things need to get a grip and step back a bit before you say others aren't playing the game as it was meant.

Ok...there's my two cents...

_____________________________


(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 112
- 1/10/2003 2:06:29 AM   
M4Jess


Posts: 5140
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: DC
Status: offline 		I wont mention names but the people who name call and try to push their ideas of the best way to play should really look in a mirror and tell themselfs that this is only a game. The best crowd to suite your play "style" are here. If you C&C crowd only wants to play with C&C on thats great. But leave the others alone. I dont really like C&C but who cares? So dont play me. I enjoy the fooling around and the teasing at the AAR forum and I KNOW there are alot of real players there and I also know there are/have been cheaters there. So why not just back the F off...live/play and let live/play....and by the way...grow up.

Panzer Leo! I love your Mod and think it great just the way it is and if some people want to nick-pick it..well....thats not the players you made it for anyways,,,,:D

Remember that all players have a love of history on this subject..and many of us are wrong somtimes...gezzz guys

Grow up...

Oh..by the way...the M4 was the Might of tanks in WW2:p

Jess

_____________________________



Im making war, not trouble~


(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 113
not really - 1/10/2003 2:09:38 AM   
Tomanbeg

 

Posts: 4385
Joined: 7/14/2000
From: Memphis, Tn, CSA
Status: offline 		Originally posted by rbrunsman
[B]I thought the Germans had terrible communications capability compared to the Americans (a radio in every hand). Is C&C not modeling that?

Also, it seems to me, that as the American commander, as long as I keep my platoons together, I would crush the Germans given an equal number of points. It is still 82 US men against 45 Germans. I wouldn't want those odds against an equally skilled foe. [/B]

No, C&C is more then just a radio check. It is also a very generic measure of an officers ability to lead, his training and resourcefulness. And the Americans were not really the equal on that level until after the Ruhr pocket was closed. That was the first time the US-UK forces actually captured a significant number of german officers. And then the only reason the Ami's started to match the germans on a Platoon Leader/Company commander level was they adopted the same system the germans used. Not thru choice but out of desperation. The US Army had a serious shortage of riflemen by November of '44. Poor planning, they had plenty of manpower, it was just not on the front lines with a rifle. It was bad enough that Black troopers were allowed to serve in front line units. The officer shortage(Plt and Co. commanders, there were lots of majors and cols.), was even worse. Marshell sent a specialist out from washington and he solved the problem by having Sgts. that were acting as Platoon leaders promoted to Lt. and staying with their platoons. before if they accepted the promotion, they had to leave their platoon, which they didn't want to do. On the other side of the hill, the german system took in future officers as 'officer canidates', were they started as a corporal and fast track their way to squad leader and platoon Sgt. before going to Military school. The best military Leaders are those that com up through the ranks. So there is more involved then who has a radio.
T.

_____________________________

"The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead."
– The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.
[IMG]http

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 114
More C&C - 1/10/2003 2:29:51 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I don't want people to think I am a C&C on fanatic.
A problem with the game was expressed and I am only trying to pin down exactly where it exists.
The adding of points to one side might in fact be the answer if the players are using C&C off and one of the players is paying extra for his units based on their superior C&C on characteristics.

Lets first use an example of C&C on. German tank platoon. 4 Tanks. Leader is able to give orders to entire platoon to move and fire. German unit cost more because of this ability. Russian Tank platoon 4 tanks. Leader is only able to move and fire half the platoon because of C&C being on. Russian unit cost less because of this (Russians need 2 platoons to move and fire 4 tanks)
Now turn C&C off. German still pays more but now cheaper Russian units get "free" equal ability. It is this difference that needs to be reimbursed to German player when deciding point cost. (since perhaps this is where point difference first arises)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 115
- 1/10/2003 2:39:37 AM   
rbrunsman


Posts: 1837
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline 		Thanks for the explanation Tomanbeg. So the Germans were better because the men loved their squad leaders and would do what they were told because the squad leader was "one of them." Whereas, the US "imposed" leaders on the men who hadn't earned the respect needed to get the men to agree to run off to certain death "taking that MG bunker." Is that it in a nutshell (at least in the early part of the US involvement in the war)? I wish the US had more (any) movies that portrayed the German soldiers better/realistically. The problem with SPR and BoB was that they made the Germans look like a bunch of chickens running around without guidance (but that's another thread topic).

If I didn't play this [U]game[/U], then I wouldn't get to learn all the fascinating things I do by reading/posting on the Forum. I understand that C&C was a critical factor in what made a country successful or not, but that doesn't mean I should have to play it, because, quite frankly, I like being able to run my troops all over hell and back without losing control of them. I get enough of a sense of the C&C function by not having the x0 unit near enough to help rally my wayward units. Would you C&C On players begrudge me the education I am getting by playing with C&C off? Any learning is good. I am not after a PhD in military history here, just a basic understanding.

And, you go! Orzel & M4! Tell 'em!

I think this discussion has been of great help even though a few people got their feathers ruffled.

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 116
- 1/10/2003 3:04:05 AM   
john g

 

Posts: 984
Joined: 10/6/2000
From: college station, tx usa
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by rbrunsman
[B]Thanks for the explanation Tomanbeg. So the Germans were better because the men loved their squad leaders and would do what they were told because the squad leader was "one of them." Whereas, the US "imposed" leaders on the men who hadn't earned the respect needed to get the men to agree to run off to certain death "taking that MG bunker." Is that it in a nutshell (at least in the early part of the US involvement in the war)? I wish the US had more (any) movies that portrayed the German soldiers better/realistically. The problem with SPR and BoB was that they made the Germans look like a bunch of chickens running around without guidance (but that's another thread topic).

[/B][/QUOTE]

If the movie Patton had shown the events at Kasserine you might have seen US troops running around like chickens.

Remember SPR delt with rangers and airborne, BoB delt with airborne, not exactly your normal infantry trooper.

A large differance comes into play when comparing the early war divisions with the late war divisions. The combat record of a division like 1st infantry is totally different from something like 95th. Not to mention what the repple-depple mess did to units when it sent untrained troops forward into units involved in combat instead of integrating them when a unit was out of the line.
thanks, John.

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 117
- 1/10/2003 3:12:44 AM   
rbrunsman


Posts: 1837
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by john g
[B]Remember SPR delt with rangers and airborne, BoB delt with airborne, not exactly your normal infantry trooper.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks, but my point was that the US AB units were facing the "feared" Falschirmjaeger troops in many instances and you are lead to believe the the FJs weren't so tough. A movie from the German side would be unformative for those of us interested in historical accuracy. Your average American probably has a perspective that they simply cannot believe that those stupid Germans (as portrayed in American movies) took over Europe.

What's a "repple-depple mess?"

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 118
- 1/10/2003 3:30:10 AM   
Panzer Leo

 

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline 		Uhhh...easy guys...don't take all too serious here...and thanks for chiming in, but don't leave us alone Orzel, you're welcome :)

Seems my attempt to kick up some dust failed and I scared away the one or other...sorry, was not my intention :(

To make things cool down a bit, here's where I am at the moment:

Bazookas:

-weapons in squads range 4
-weapons as individual AT-teams range 7

reason: I cannot reduce the too high hit chances of Bazookas in squads, so limiting the range is the only way to make them behave realistic...extracting them from the squads wouldn't meet US tactics and the tons of little Bazooka teams running around in Airborne formations is just not practical...
The PIAT will be treated the same, except for range 3 (6)
Range 4 for a Bazooka means a max effective range of 150m - the last hex always gets enormeous penalties, so trying to hit tanks at 4 hexes will be very difficult...range 7 in Inf-AT teams to keep at least a bit potential to attack buildings at greater ranges (keep in mind, that the hit chances of the teams are anyways lower then in the squads, so they shouldn't hit tanks reliably over 3 hexes)...
PzSchreck will be altered accordingly, ofcourse...

Costs:

- German infantry will undergo a reduction leaving standard infantry from around 20-28 pts per squad, depending on equipement
- tanks will not be redone, except for a Russian hvy correction on JS tanks - these will be priced a bit higher

reason: after several tests it showed up, that primarely not the costs of the tanks are the main driving factor behind unbalanced games, but the 65/70 gap, that shows up more frequent in H2H because of the raised EXP base levels...

this is where the latest testing went...

BTW, rbrunsman, the experience base level is the number you see in the purchase screen under experience in the lower left corner...this level is taken when you buy a unit and by rolling a few dice the actual exp of a unit is determined...this is why you have verying exp around a base level (base 70 means you have a few units with 64 and so and some with 76...all scattered around the 70 by random)

_____________________________

[URL=http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/spwaw_h2h_modrework.php] [IMG]http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/PzLeos-H2H-Title-1.jpg[/IMG] [/URL]

Mir nach, ich folge euch !

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 119
- 1/10/2003 4:20:03 AM   
VikingNo2


Posts: 2918
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: NC
Status: offline 		On command and control, not the game, real I agree with T as far as command and control the Germans were the best, Now I believe the Marines are one of the best ( I'm partial ofcource ) it comes down to whom can give orders, the lower the level you can give orders the more responsive and adaptable units you will get.


The Rusians old doctrine, command and control was their weakness( mine is spelling ), forget shooting at the tank with the big gun shoot at the Tank with the antennas it will make the onther tanks have to make decision they are not use to making, of couse the flip side of that, there was 1000 tanks. When doing training with forigen military's one question always serfaces, how do the enlisted have so much power (responsibility) and pull it off.

I still think its a better game CC Off, but I'm going learn CC On

Those changes seem very good will they be posted on your web site ?

(in reply to rbrunsman)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   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

0.859