H2H suggestions - big ones.

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

H2H suggestions - big ones.

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 >> H2H suggestions - big ones.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

H2H suggestions - big ones. - 1/10/2003 4:29:12 AM

Svennemir

Posts: 542
Joined: 11/2/2001
From: Denmark
Status: offline

There are a lot of people out there discussing minor changes like bazookas, etc. . Since there's a lot of talking going on about stuff like that I decided to start another thread.

I propose an across-the-board vehicle speed reform. :eek:

While the present vehicle speeds might technically correspond well to real-life speeds considering the length of a turn, current values might still not be the best simulation. There are numerous reasons.

A vehicle can presently drive 1/3 of the way across the map in one turn (am I exaggerating? It feels like 1/3). This means player 1 will be able to secure center victory hexes in the first turn => big advantage in meeting engagement. Lowering speed would not eliminate, but still reduce this advantage. This is the least important reason for the change.

When vehicle speeds are high, it is viable e.g. to load baz teams or other AT-capable units inside jeeps or HTs, then drive them all the way to a tank which has used up its OpFire, unload and assault, all in one turn. Let's just say that this is ridiculous and can partially be stopped by lowering vehicle speeds.

A closely related problem is that Rates-of-fire don't correspond well to vehicle speeds. The speed/ROF is not even remotely close to realistic values. You can drive a tank a kilometre at the battlefield, but it can shoot only 2-6 times over the same time span depending on gun and experience. This favours movement to firing, meaning attacking forces gain a relative advantage. As it is, the standard point distributions of SPWAW are unfair for the defender, according to my experience.

Also this will make people feel the lack of mobility of the Elefant-type tanks, which is not really a big problem with current numbers.

What do you think?

Post #: 1

- 1/10/2003 6:12:40 PM

Panzer Leo

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline

Haven't really thought about this one...input and comments would be appreciated...sounds interesting :)

_____________________________

[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 Svennemir)

Post #: 2

- 1/10/2003 7:36:02 PM

Warrior

Posts: 1808
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: West Palm Beach, FL USA
Status: offline

Seems to me the speed complaint above is directly related to the size of the map.

_____________________________

Retreat is NOT an option.

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 3

- 1/10/2003 7:59:08 PM

Warhorse

Posts: 5712
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: Birdsboro, PA, USA
Status: offline

Well, I originally had taken many weeks to put the correct speeds in for every vehicle, when we first released WAW, but then, somewhere along the line, when the larger maps came along, someone changed them all!!! My modifiedi nstall of SPWAWv7.1 uses heavily modified version 2.1 oob's back when they still had the right speeds, I like 'em better!! Sorry, but I can't release them to anyone, as my mech.exe is heavily modified also with lot's of icons added that the 'official' game doesn't have, and the size is too big to mail.

_____________________________

Mike Amos

Meine Ehre hei�t Treue
www.cslegion.com

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 4

- 1/10/2003 8:23:31 PM

Panzer Leo

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline

But what makes the lower speed rates the "real ones" ?

Now a T-34 goes 800m on open ground (not road, but plain grasland) in a period of 2-5 minutes...

The shots being not very related to speed is a point, but one also has to keep in mind, that a unit does not fire 2-5 shots a turn but up to 2-5 shots plus the OpFire...you just don't have real control over a good part of shots made a turn...but it nevertheless has to be counted against these same 2-5 minutes...

So I need more input why a T-34 shouldn't go 800m if it wants to...

_____________________________

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 5

- 1/10/2003 9:05:08 PM

Warhorse

Posts: 5712
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: Birdsboro, PA, USA
Status: offline

Well, what I meant was, as close to real in game terms as it gets!:) I got say the Panzer IVF2 speed from the encyclopedia, then tested it out on roads in WAW, until it came out close to true road speed, then used the numbers to make an equation, which I used across the board, it worked out very well, using the speed indicatror in the bottom left hand side, they aren't anywhere near it now... Of course we could all argue over increments of time ad-nauseaum, and relative speed, but you DO have to make a line somewhere!!:D

_____________________________

Mike Amos

Meine Ehre hei�t Treue
www.cslegion.com

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 6

- 1/10/2003 9:22:21 PM

m10bob

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

Well,this kind of relates to "speed"..The American M18 was very fast and therefore a harder target to hit..It has been way too easy to knock it off,(as if its' historical agility had no factor in the game at all)..To counter this,I have been altering the size of the unit to a "2",(from its' present "3"..)If this is workable,I'm sure there might be some other vehicles out there which could be looked at as well..There might be another way to represent "agility" of large vehicles ,but I just thought this might be the easiest without re-working a whole mech file..??

_____________________________

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 7

- 1/10/2003 9:54:31 PM

Panzer Leo

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline

I'm not sure, if the speed calculation in the game is really trustable...

Let's stay with real life numbers...

a T-34 m41 is said to be able to drive at 40km/h cross country (the flat grassland)....that means it makes 666m in one minute, if it drives in a straight line towards it's waypoint...

A turn in SP is a fluid thing of 2-5 minutes, thus leaving a T-34 with a max cross country performence from 1333m up to 3333m...

The middle of it is 2333m in the average as max performence

Max performence shouldn't be taken, as the common performence is usually significantly lower

The speed in the game right now is 800m, about a third of the average max performence...

sounds pretty good to me !?

_____________________________

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 8

- 1/10/2003 9:58:54 PM

Panzer Leo

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by m10bob
[B]Well,this kind of relates to "speed"..The American M18 was very fast and therefore a harder target to hit..It has been way too easy to knock it off,(as if its' historical agility had no factor in the game at all)..To counter this,I have been altering the size of the unit to a "2",(from its' present "3"..)If this is workable,I'm sure there might be some other vehicles out there which could be looked at as well..There might be another way to represent "agility" of large vehicles ,but I just thought this might be the easiest without re-working a whole mech file..?? [/B][/QUOTE]

The problem with this approach would be, that it get's not only a bonus while driving (simulating the agility), but also when stationary...this means it is harder to hit and spot...if you do that, you take away the advantage of German tank destroyers, e.g., that have actually a size of 2 and the benefits of it, but also do suffer from being turretless to achieve that, leaving them with reduced ROF and other disadvantages...

_____________________________

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 9

- 1/10/2003 10:36:57 PM

m10bob

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

True!.....:(

_____________________________

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 10

- 1/10/2003 10:40:20 PM

Svennemir

Posts: 542
Joined: 11/2/2001
From: Denmark
Status: offline

REMF:
[QUOTE]Seems to me the speed complaint above is directly related to the size of the map.[/QUOTE]

"Seems so"? Only *one* of my statements is related to map size, and as I said: it's the *least* important one. The others are related to combat "dynamics", e.g. rates of fire to movement speeds. I don't see the map size being even remotely relevant in this respect :rolleyes: . Besides, seeing my post wrongly summarized in one line doesn't really make a good impression, so bear with me if I don't sound polite. Also, it's a suggestion, not a complaint !

Sorry about that.

Pz.Leo:
[QUOTE]But what makes the lower speed rates the "real ones" ?[/QUOTE]

That's exactly the point. Allow me to quote myself:
[QUOTE]While the present vehicle speeds might technically correspond well to real-life speeds considering the length of a turn, current values might still not be the best simulation. [/QUOTE]

Let's for a brief moment assume that SPWAW strives toward simulating combat optimally.

Even if square size, movement speeds etc. are *technically* correct, the simulation will not necessarily correspond very well to real-life battle dynamics.

One of the examples listed is the ability to load a baz team or inf squad on a vehicle and drive it *all* the way to a supressed tank in one turn, before the tank has a chance to reduce suppression and possibly pull back. The ability to do this is obviously unrealistic since it would normally be pointless (if not suicide) to drive across open spaces right towards enemy AFVs in lightly armoured carriers. (either the AFV would fire back or retreat, meaning you wouldn't just catch it in either case)

Examples such as this would propose the solution of lowering overall speeds, even though the technical values are presently correct.

Actually it is not interesting whether or not those values are presently correct, the interesting part is whether or not battlefield simulation is accurate and prevents unrealistic side effects.

There are a lot of side effects occuring due to the turn-based nature of the game. Obviously, the "smaller" a turn is, the more accurate the simulation (small speeds, small ROFs), but if the turns are too short the game will be drawn out and be impossible to play. Presently I judge (beforementioned reasons, among others that I could probably state later) that the balance is, however, such that improved "dynamics" could be achieved from generally lowering present movement speeds.

My point should be clear now: since we can't make a realistic simulation using technically correct values, we can obtain a better simulation using abstracted ones.

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 11

- 1/10/2003 11:57:16 PM

Panzer Leo

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline

o.k., makes somewhat sense to me...but what if you play on large maps...now you're able to simulate bypassing maneuvers and real Blitzkrieg with tanks rushing up rear areas...pretty realistic and a whole bunch of tactics modeled by the speed of the units...if we reduce these, the vehicles would be tamed to a more infantry support like role...in many cases not even historically incorrect, but a whole type of maeuvering and tactics is gone then...

The example you used is the prime one and most annoying when talking of movement...the HT or tank driving next to an enemy tank, unloading infantry and assaulting...
But I see this not as negative as you do...it is the same abstraction you mentioned when dealing with turns...
To get the whole picture, one has to see all actions of that turn effecting this assault...there has to be some arty to pin the tank or other units that keep it busy to make the approach work...if a tank,.e.g. is buttoned by lots of MG fire and some mortar shells falling around it, it becomes more realistic a HT could sneak up and infantry goes for the assault (also remember that arty is very abstract due to the turns...the rounds are realistically falling a whole turn in some cases, but you don't see that, as the routines have to handle that at once at a given time point)...it just looks a bit stupid when you see the single action of the super-drive assault and you can't do anything about it...
Not really realistic, I admit, but it looks a bit friendlier to see it that way :)

_____________________________

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 12

- 1/11/2003 12:39:22 AM

Warhorse

Posts: 5712
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: Birdsboro, PA, USA
Status: offline

I play on nothing but the largest size maps available in my campaigns, and I have no problem navigating the whole field in the allotted game time, usually around 30 turns, with my 'old' speed values!!

_____________________________

Mike Amos

Meine Ehre hei�t Treue
www.cslegion.com

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 13

my two cents here ... - 1/12/2003 9:49:36 PM

Gallo Rojo

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

Ok ... I'm don't have to mucht time to type a long post here ... but the topic really interest me ...

I suggest to take a look in SPWW2 speeds. It seems that all vehicles and units have a half of the speed that they have in SPWaW/H2H

Examples:

vehicle:----------Speed WaW/H2H-----------Speed in WW2
PzIIIm: -------------- 24 hexes-------------------13 hex
PzIVh: ----------------26 hex----------------------13 hex
Panther---------------28 hex----------------------15 hex
Tiger-------------------22 hex----------------------11 hex
Sdkfz 222------------- ? ---------------------------20 hex
Sdkfz 251/9 ---------- ? ---------------------------17 hex
T-34/76 ---------------- 34 hex ------------------- 17 hex

I don't know exacly how ROF and op.fire routines are modeled in both games, son I don't know how a reduction in unit's speed in SPWaW/H2H may affect general game performance ... but why don't make some test with SPWW2 speeds and see what happens?

Two more small points:

1) There is something that I don't like of SPWaW/H2H and I really like about SPWW2: in SPWaW/H2H a tank can move full range, and shot after that with good chances of hit it's target (this is specially true about German tanks ... not say Soviets, which has very poor fire control and low experienced crews), while in SPWW2 you only have goods chances of hit the target if you have not moved you vehicle or if you have move it only one or two hexes (or if you get really close to your target, namely you move full range with a T-34 and get at only one hex from the target for a point-blank shot).
I don't know if changing H2H speeds you need to modifie fire control/range finder ranges ... but in gereal I prefer how SPWW2 is modeled than how SPWaW/H2H is.

2) I think that what I will point next can not be modified without having the code or not ... but any way ...
There is something that I think that the game do not address and this is the diferent vehicles maneubrability (which is not necesary related with speed).
I mean: you know that tanks with wide tranks were more maneubrable than those without wide traks.
What I'm meaning is that tanks like Tiger, Panther and T-34 (for example) were more maneubrable and performend better in soft terrains (mud and snow) than other tanks like PzIII, PzIV or Sherman (I know that late versions of PzIII/IV and Shermans had a sort of "extensions" to be added to the tracks in winter to solve this problem, but any way) ... may be it coul be a good idea to give wide trak's tanks (Tigers, Panthers, T-34, JS, KV) some more move points in order to represent this ...
just an idea.

Sorry if I said to much no-senses ... I'm only trying to improve the game :D

By the way: PzLeo: if you need some one to help you testing the new version, send me an email (and be patient with my feedbak ... I'm pretty bussy now a days :) )

Best,
Gallo

_____________________________

The bayonet is a weapon with a worker on each end

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 14

- 1/12/2003 11:51:22 PM

Irinami

Posts: 746
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Florida, USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panzer Leo
[B]The problem with this approach would be, that it get's not only a bonus while driving (simulating the agility), but also when stationary[/B][/QUOTE]

Not necessarily; the hex is fifty frickin' meters, and if we assume that hexes are a little bit fluid (that is, vehicles might evade briefly into an adjacent hex--it's a similar leap of faith as opfire IM(ns)HO ;)), then that little tank's got some room for evasive maneuvers. Just a thought.

_____________________________

Newbies!!
Wild Bill's Tanks at Munda Mini-Campaign. The training campaign for comb

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 15

- 1/13/2003 1:14:41 AM

Svennemir

Posts: 542
Joined: 11/2/2001
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Good to see some constructive feedback!

It's true that in SPWW2 the values are much lower. I wouldn't suggest changes this extreme.

If we decide to change movement speeds, it is of course still important to be cautious. Something could be broken if speeds are changed too much. This means the 50% change of SPWW2 is ruled out. No more than a 25% change can be considered "safe" - and probably the change should be even smaller, like 15%. Just to be on the safe side. But of course these numbers are just quick ramblings. More feedback is welcome.

I still think a speed change could improve both game flow and realism.

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 16

- 1/13/2003 3:11:55 AM

Gallo Rojo

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Svennemir
[B]Good to see some constructive feedback!

It's true that in SPWW2 the values are much lower. I wouldn't suggest changes this extreme.

If we decide to change movement speeds, it is of course still important to be cautious. Something could be broken if speeds are changed too much. This means the 50% change of SPWW2 is ruled out. No more than a 25% change can be considered "safe" - and probably the change should be even smaller, like 15%. Just to be on the safe side. But of course these numbers are just quick ramblings. More feedback is welcome.

I still think a speed change could improve both game flow and realism. [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't avoacate for such radical change neither.
I only quoted as an example.

I agree that a change no bigger than 25% is what we eventually need.

Regarding with what you said about that the Player 1 has an advantadge over player 2 since he can deploy a "screen" of AT-Teams transpoted in jeeps (or equivalent), I think that the best solution could be including some restriction for the player 1. Example: not allowing him to move more than the half of his units in the first turn (I don't believe that PzLeo can do this without having the code).

best
Gallo

_____________________________

The bayonet is a weapon with a worker on each end

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 17

- 1/14/2003 1:25:43 AM

chief

Posts: 1660
Joined: 9/28/2000
From: Haines City FL, USA
Status: offline

I've been following this thread with interest.....no, I have no input, but I do have a question....Never having played SPWW2, what is the hex size ? :o :confused:

_____________________________

"God Bless America and All the Young men and women who give their all to protect Her"....chief

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 18

- 1/14/2003 2:09:57 AM

Gallo Rojo

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by chief
[B]I've been following this thread with interest.....no, I have no input, but I do have a question....Never having played SPWW2, what is the hex size ? :o :confused: [/B][/QUOTE]

50 yards across. exactly the same than SPWaW.

SPWW2 and SPWAW/H2H are more or less the same game.
Same scale, same historical period.
SPWaW si windows based while SPWW2 is DOS based, therefore SPWaW has much better graphics and sounds. SPWaW also allows for on-line game, while SPWW2 don't have this option.

on the other hand SPWW2 AI is smartest (much smartest) than SPWaW one's. It has a much better OOB. And generally speaking, I preffer the way in which WW2 war enviroment is modeled in SPWW2 than in SPWaW (but this is a matter of opinion, of course).

back to the topic: If general vehicles speed is reduced, it could be possible that ROF have to be also reduced, isn't it?

_____________________________

The bayonet is a weapon with a worker on each end

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 19

- 1/14/2003 2:17:00 AM

chief

Posts: 1660
Joined: 9/28/2000
From: Haines City FL, USA
Status: offline

Gallo: Thank you for very informative reply, helps a lot when you read the forums and different games are mentioned etc., really clears my cobwebs of my mind. "Gracious" (Forgive the spelling);) :D :cool:

_____________________________

"God Bless America and All the Young men and women who give their all to protect Her"....chief

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 20

- 1/14/2003 12:55:24 PM

Tombstone

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

It's a given that the rate of fire of these units is slower than reality. It's a mechanism whose behavior has been tuned to work within the mechanics of the game system. Movement, weapons fire, kill calculations these are extremely important systems in a game about war. The idea is to make things work right, not have numbers that adhere to reality. The relationship between these major game systems are going to define the player's experience. It's worth mentioning that realistic numbers in a system that doesn't model reality accurately are meaningless. Slowing down movement rates of vehicles would probably have several beneficial effects. If there aren't any/many negative effects there's no reason not to do it.

Tomo

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 21

- 1/14/2003 7:58:43 PM

Panzer Leo

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline

Hmmm...as I can't see much opposition here, I think I have to throw in a few things we should consider:

I see no problems with fast units being reduced by 20% or so...a T-34 will still be a pretty fast and agile vehicle on the battle field...

But like it is usually, when you reduce the scale of a value, the most drastic effects are felt at the lower end, where a lot of different units dwell...

When we reduce a Kingtiger, e.g. by 20% how will it compare to:

-troops on foot
-bicycles
-horse carts

when these remain unchanged ?

All assumptions made sofar refer to good weather and roads, but did anyone look at bad weather and mixed terrain (or even worse) ?

A Kingtiger reduced by 20% will move 200m in good weather on an open filed in the snow...200m in up to 5 min ?

It currently is only at 250m, but a reduction of even a single hex hurts extremely...and would it be realistic for a tank that has wide tracks and pretty good movement on plain ground compared to it's size ?

There're ofcourse other vehicles that will face the same problems, but the example of the Kingtiger should show where we could end with a speed reduction...

My other problem is:

Up to now I found only one really important argument to reduce the speeds, that being the relation of fire and movement (most other problems evolve out of this one)...

The problem with the speeding up of vic hexes in meeting engagements surely is one, but it is primarely a problem of a poor battle generator not adressing this properly...
I never ever play on generated maps...the above is one of the reasons...if you use designed maps, you easily can take care of this by setting start lines and vic hexes locations...

So what I see till now is:

contra

-the current speeds are not unrealistic (1/3 of technical speed as defenitely a modeled game speed)
-further reduction would cause problems on the slower end with different unit types
-a tactical option of speed armor movement will be very limited

pro

-reduction of the rush and assaults tactis
-better relation of movement and fire

Now, isn't there a way to achieve the pros with a different approach ?

_____________________________

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 22

- 1/14/2003 11:57:44 PM

rbrunsman

Posts: 1837
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline

Thanks for pointing out the problem with across the board reductions Panzer Leo. I've been watching this thread on hoping someone would be able to put my concerns into words better than I could have.

As an solution, what about causing a greater lose of movement points for fast movers when they shoot or get shot at? I'm thinking about M8 Greyhounds and Hellcats that can move incredibly fast. They can move many hexes, fire all their shots and still move back to safety.

H2H motorcylce squads have a speed of 55. Relative to the other vehicles in the game this seems like an accurate number. Why slow them down? If they are fast in life, shouldn't they be fast in the game? Reducing their speed just to stop VH grabbing on Turn 1 seems like overkill to me. Play a longer game or don't play per turn VH point games. In a longer battle you don't necessarily need to be the first to grab the VHs.

My sense is that the advantage goes to the AFV unit that moves and shoots as opposed to the unit that is defending/moving slowly. This doesn't seem correct, so maybe a greater penalty for shots fired on the move is a better solution than reducing speeds. Although, I must say, I am happy with the situation as it now stands.

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 23

- 1/15/2003 12:54:54 AM

Svennemir

Posts: 542
Joined: 11/2/2001
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Interesting points, Pz.Leo.

It is true that the slower vehicles will experience the greatest effect. An option which could prevent this effect is applying reductions of approximately 12-20% (for example) to vehicles with different speeds.

If we're lazy we can use a linear function to distribute. Thus, fast vehicles like T-34 and hellcat could have their speeds reduced by some 22-23 % while slow units would only have their speeds reduced 12-13%. (maybe a bit extreme differences don't know yet)

Of course we can select the percentages any way we want.

I've noticed that, if one of my tanks stumbles upon ready enemy positions I can very often bring in a whole lot of other fast-moving tanks to save it from destruction in the same turn. This property makes it very easy to manage tanks even when controlled poorly. I can basically place the units where I want them and still have them available for fast reactions within an immense radius.

Thus it will be a more challenging task to organize armour for effective use, but when done properly it will still be as effective as ever - you just have to plan ahead.

About the blitz advance tactics suffering, I'd say that vehicle speed >> infantry speeds still, so there won't be much more time to regroup even if you see a fast-moving tank-company. Also the main effect here will be that vehicles cannot be hit with bombardments so easily as infantry, and also infantry are very easily stopped by direct fire (movement points reduced by 2/3 or something like that) whereas tanks will just continue at near max speed. This difference is the primary consideration in blitz tactics, and it will not be touched by the speed change.

Also I would like to add yet another pro:

-better relation of movement speed to typical LOS/firing ranges.

Likewise this is one of the more abstract properties of the game. This, like the speed/ROF ratio, allows the tank commander to swarm enemy positions with vehicles, when it would otherwise have taken another turn to reach the enemy positions. Fortified positions are surprisingly easy to overcome when you can drive right up beside them instantaneously (mind that I have thought out this after attacking myself and seeing how easy it is to rout a fortified enemy). It is very easy to rout them once you're close enough except in extremely dense terrain. I see I can't explain my point very well...

In bad weather or snow, infantry units are currently the losers. They can move only about 4 hexes normally, but when this speed is lowered through terrain roughness they quickly sink below the speed necessary to capture even smaller maps in these conditions. Considering that infantry was *very* often on foot, I'd say the infantry speeds should not be lowered, since this could actually break the game under non-perfect conditions. It's too risky. Vehicles, however, still have a large surplus of movement, meaning possible overcorrections won't hurt game balance to anywhere near the same degree. Also the beforementioned proposal of using varying percentages will strive towards preventing such possible overcorrection.

If you, Pz.Leo, could do a few (quick and crude) test OOBs with speeds lowered around 15% (maybe just US, GE and SO OOBs), it would be easier for people to test the effects. I don't have a lot of time on my hands, but if I could borrow such OOBs I could take a look.

[QUOTE]Now, isn't there a way to achieve the pros with a different approach ?[/QUOTE]

Maybe, but I think this is simply the best way.

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 24

- 1/15/2003 2:24:24 AM

Gallo Rojo

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

One short thinks that just come to my mind:

Tanks speed and Over-run:
Reducing vehicles speed could be some problems related with over-run tactics.
As you know over-run needs moving points to be performed. If you reduce vehicles speed, then the chances for a Tank to over-run an enemy infantry/artillery unit will be seriously reduced too. Over-run tactic was almost indispensable against well entrenched infantry in previous SPWaW versions in which infantry was stronger than in actual version.
If we have been talking about (in other post) about strengthen infantry (when in defense) in future H2H versions, then reducing Tanks speed and therefore reducing their over-run capacity, could be a very bad idea. So we have to be careful about that.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Svennemir
[B] If we're lazy we can use a linear function to distribute. Thus, fast vehicles like T-34 and hellcat could have their speeds reduced by some 22-23 % while slow units would only have their speeds reduced 12-13%. (maybe a bit extreme differences don't know yet). [/B][/QUOTE]

But this will penalize fast vehicles (like T-34, Sherman, Hellcat) and improve slow units performance (Tigers or other heavy tanks)
Son in this case I would advocate for a reduction in slower vehicles ROF, in order to not benefic them over fast vehicles.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rbrunsman
[B] My sense is that the advantage goes to the AFV unit that moves and shoots as opposed to the unit that is defending/moving slowly. This doesn't seem correct, so maybe a greater penalty for shots fired on the move is a better solution than reducing speeds. Although, I must say, I am happy with the situation as it now stands. [/B][/QUOTE]

This point is specially true for German units (and some American tanks too).
I wasn�t played Germans since a long time, so I had forget how it was, but playing Stalingrad Campaign I noticed that my PzIII and PzIV could move full range and still have a good amount of shots available and they also had good accuracy rates to shot T-34 (which were moving fast).
And I noticed the same in a current PBEM in which I�m playing Germans against French.
This Move Fast & Sot vs Moving Slowly Shot, is something that I think that have to be modified � the problem is that we can face a problem similar to the �reducing speed� issue: while a reduction in high ROF / high fire control vehicles (such as PzIII or PzV) won�t have a big impact on their performance, the I wonder what will happen with small ROF / low fire control vehicles (such as T-34m41 or 42).

What I suggest is taking a look on SPWW2 and try to emulate it (I mean, take a look on which values are they using for ROF, Fire Control/Range Finder for different untis).
I say that since SPWW2 do this two thinks that we are talking about:
1- Speed of all its units is the half of SPWaWs.
2- In SPWW2, if you move fast a tank you can forget about hitting anything (unless you get 1 hex distance from your target for a point blank shot), while firing from a stand position or after moving no more than two hexes is the way of have good chance of hitting the target.

best,
gallo

_____________________________

The bayonet is a weapon with a worker on each end

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 25

- 1/15/2003 2:40:11 AM

Redleg

Posts: 1805
Joined: 5/23/2000
Status: offline

Keep in mind the rough and jungle terrain.

There are certain battlefields already where infantry can only move 1-2 hexes per turn in bad weather and/or rugged terrain.

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 26

- 1/15/2003 3:04:59 AM

Tombstone

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

If you actually felt the loss of accuracy for moving at full speed the movement rates would probably be fine. I think that accurate firing should be more restricted than it is. If once you went past 50% of your max speed that accuracy was dropped to a 1/4 then you'd only move fast when you felt safe or really had to get somewhere and didn't mind getting shot at without returning fire. Increasing map sizes from left to right would also help (I'd love this feature.) The problem is in the behavior that emerges with the current system where I tend to swarm hard points with tons of units at close range then disperse the next. If getting close wasn't such a cure for moving fast I wouldn't have the game promoting this kind of behavior. Transporting infantry is also a problem here. Going full speed with half-tracks, dropping them off, and firing a crap load of mg off the half-track and infantry weapons from the dumped squad is insanity. I bet if infantry couldn't disemabark from units unless the half-track was going slower than a certain speed that gamey tactic would die. Anyways, my point is that we should focus on degenerative styles of game-play and why they emerge. Slowing down some units still probably wouldn't hurt, but it probably needs a discriminating eye and not a sweeping systematic approach.

Tomo

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 27

- 1/15/2003 3:39:46 AM

Redleg

Posts: 1805
Joined: 5/23/2000
Status: offline

I think designing to keep weird tactics from working is a high risk operation. Some people are going to look for things that can be exploited.... then everyone else has to live with the preventive measures because of the few gamey ones.

The wider map is an excellent idea that was proposed during beta and was not feasible to implement at that time. I don't remember the technical reasons why it would not work.

PBEM players can surely use use extra large maps oriented from one corner to the the opposite corner and catch much of the same effect. Won't work for generated maps, however.

One of the things I liked best about H2H is that C/C is on by default and it is designed primarily for pbem/online play. Personally, I think it plays remarkably well and while I don't agree with some things, I hope it isn't changed radically.

There are many giant anomolies and bugs in SPWAW that are of far more consequence than vehicle speed. To me, it is like swatting mosquitos while under attack by a hornet's nest. ;)

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 28

Artillery R.O.F. - 1/15/2003 4:42:24 AM

Capt. Pixel

Posts: 1219
Joined: 10/15/2001
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

I would like to see the artillery ROF reduced back to the 7.1 values.

The ammo reload capability was severely modified by this change. I understand that this was an effort to reduce the overwhelming effect of artillery in the game, but other methods could be used to compensate for the supposed imbalance. Reducing initial ammo loadouts night be one way to solve the problem. Alternatively, reducing the ROF to slightly less than the 7.1 values might also help.

Someone also suggested that Artillery Effectivity be reduced to ~60%, but I haven't see the results of that suggestion yet.

Another item I'd like considered is the US .50 cal HMG. This weapon, IMHO, provides the US forces with an unfair advantage. Having a HMG with penetration capability, that fires everytime the main gun fires, just give the US forces too much advantage. The same could be said for the SO 12.7 HMG.

It's one of the reasons that I don't care to play with or against US forces. :rolleyes:

_____________________________

"Always mystify, mislead, and surprise the enemy, if possible. "
- Stonewall Jackson

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 29

- 1/15/2003 4:46:08 AM

rbrunsman

Posts: 1837
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Redleg
[B]There are many giant anomolies and bugs in SPWAW that are of far more consequence than vehicle speed. To me, it is like swatting mosquitos while under attack by a hornet's nest. ;) [/B][/QUOTE]

This is my concern with major changes. We are all so used to playing this game with its quirks that they are second nature to us. If you mess with one feature to fix a bug/flaw, you will almost certainly create another bug/flaw that will be new and annoying to everyone.

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 30