Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Special Op Fire and Point Blank Fire seems whacked

 
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 >> Special Op Fire and Point Blank Fire seems whacked Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Special Op Fire and Point Blank Fire seems whacked - 6/1/2001 11:11:00 AM   
Joe Osborne

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Somewhere on a beach
Status: offline
Maybe it's me, but I've been playing quite a few PBEM Stalingrad games with a lot of infantry action. I've noticed that I catch a LOT of Special Ops Return fire from even "normal" Soviet troops....I don't see it happening more frequently with elite Guards units..it just seems to happen too often...especially after I've engaged a unit and traded several exchanges and then NOT gotten return fire...then I hit it with another unit and I get "Special Ops Fire"...this seems totally whacked... The Point Blank Op fire is even more whacked imho as I've engaged a unit hit it with a ton of stuff...get no return fire....move a unit up next to it...and then get this fire??? Shouldn't be.....and it IS having a dramatic negative impact on tactics in the game. Anyone else seen this or am I smoking the wrong stuff? (but not inhaling :D ) Joe Osborne

_____________________________

Post #: 1
- 6/1/2001 3:03:00 PM   
Red Baron

 

Posts: 423
Joined: 5/7/2000
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Hi Joe.. Nice to hear that you still are alive ;) Hope you get a tan :D :D Lately i have been notiscing the same thing and most agree upon your point. It seems a bit tweaked that a unit whom been attacked and hit several times is able to get that kind a Special OP-fire... Regards..Michael.

_____________________________


(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 2
- 6/1/2001 4:56:00 PM   
Mikimoto

 

Posts: 511
Joined: 11/6/2000
From: Barcelona, Catalunya
Status: offline
Hello. I have noticed this too. But another thing is annoying me with Special Op fire. It is my turn and I select one infantry unit to fire. Well, when I fire (the unit) at the enemy, and before the animation, the program says: "Special Op fire". How can it be opportunity fire if this is my turn? :eek:

_____________________________

Desperta ferro!
Miquel Guasch Aparicio

(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 3
- 6/1/2001 5:27:00 PM   
headhunter

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 5/8/2000
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Joe Osborne: ...especially after I've engaged a unit and traded several exchanges and then NOT gotten return fire...then I hit it with another unit and I get "Special Ops Fire"...this seems totally whacked... The Point Blank Op fire is even more whacked imho as I've engaged a unit hit it with a ton of stuff...get no return fire....move a unit up next to it...and then get this fire??? Shouldn't be.....and it IS having a dramatic negative impact on tactics in the game. Joe Osborne
Keep in mind that, because of the UGO-IGO nature of SPWaW, your actions in a turn do not represent the sequential order of what is happening. In your example above, you move unit A up to the enemy, no return fire, then you move unit B and it is shot at. But "in reality" B may have moved there before A ! :eek: Or A and B have moved there simultaneously, so that what "really" happened was that B distracted the enemy fire to get A a free attack. (I too was confused by the logical consequences of UGO-IGO for sometime. ;) ) [ June 01, 2001: Message edited by: headhunter ]

_____________________________


(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 4
- 6/1/2001 5:28:00 PM   
risto.nikula

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 5/8/2001
From: Lappi, Finland
Status: offline
quote:

It is my turn and I select one infantry unit to fire. Well, when I fire (the unit) at the enemy, and before the animation, the program says: "Special Op fire"
Happens to mee frequently. wery annoying. i have this often in close quarters battle ( 1-3) hex distance. I drive a tank close to enemy and i try to fire > spopfire, ok, tank gets supressed but i rally it to ok status, and i try to fire again > spopfire >rally > spopfire >rally... at best i can take 5-8 shots with tank and EVERY TIME enemy unit gets special op fire before the slug gets of the barrel. usually firing ends when my tank is destroyed or heavily suppressed. I sometimes think that spopfire in close q:s mean that enemy unit sees my unit starting to fire at them and take a shot back before it fires. but it happening 5-8 times in a row... and how in earth does enemy infantry know that my tank gunner is attempting to pull the trigger... do they have a x-ray vision or spider sense :confused: [ June 01, 2001: Message edited by: Jolly Roger ] [ June 01, 2001: Message edited by: Jolly Roger ]

_____________________________

Nemo saltat sorbius, nisi infanus est

(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 5
- 6/1/2001 5:42:00 PM   
Joe Osborne

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Somewhere on a beach
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by headhunter: Keep in mind that, because of the UGO-IGO nature of SPWaW, your actions in a turn do not represent the sequential order of what is happening. In your example above, you move unit A up to the enemy, no return fire, then you move unit B and it is shot at. But "in reality" B may have moved there before A ! :eek: Or A and B have moved there simultaneously, so that what "really" happened was that B distracted the enemy fire to get A a free attack. (I too was confused by the logical consequences of UGO-IGO for sometime. ;) ) [ June 01, 2001: Message edited by: headhunter ]
Well this doesn't seem to hold up logically if you consider the effect of fire upon a unit. A unit takes fire and degrades in a linear fashion, that is, sequentially. In other words, I fire at a unit and hit....suppression goes up...fire again (same or different unit) ...suppression increases...hit it again...suppression increases this goes on, ostensibly, until the unit is routed or destroyed. In the model you describe the above would occur and then when I move another unit that has NOT fired into an adjacent hex time is somehow rolled back he becomes unsuppressed and returns fire....I don't think this is how the game is actually modeled but I'm not sure....(Btw, who are these guys Hugo and Igor and why do we need them anyway :D)
quote:

Mi Hello. I have noticed this too. But another thing is annoying me with Special Op fire. It is my turn and I select one infantry unit to fire. Well, when I fire (the unit) at the enemy, and before the animation, the program says: "Special Op fire". How can it be opportunity fire if this is my turn?
I've seen this also and at first thought I was getting a "special ops fire" but my shots are reduced as normal. I don't notice any incoming fire so I'm confused as to why this label pops up at this time. [QUOTE] from Red Baron - Hi Joe.. Nice to hear that you still are alive Hope you get a tan Regards..Michael.[QUOTE] Good to hear from you too Michael! Btw, "Ultra" lives! I'll contact you about this as things progress. Maybe somebody from Matrix development can check this "Special Ops Fire" and "Special pointBlank Ops Fire" anomaly out??? Joe Osborne [ June 01, 2001: Message edited by: Joe Osborne ]

_____________________________


(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 6
- 6/1/2001 6:20:00 PM   
Red Baron

 

Posts: 423
Joined: 5/7/2000
From: Denmark
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe Osborne: [QB] Good to hear from you too Michael! Btw, "Ultra" lives! I'll contact you about this as things progress. Joe Osborne VERY nice to hear that all that work we did back than wasn´t for nothing..Very good :) Regards..Michael.

_____________________________


(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 7
- 6/1/2001 7:33:00 PM   
Alexandra


Posts: 546
Joined: 12/7/2000
From: USA
Status: offline
One thing to recall is that in 5.01 Soviet units can spontaneously recover from supression. I've seen this a lot in the Stalingrad campaign, and they tend to do it right after taking a loss. So you supress a unit, then someone kills a Russian and they start to shoot back. This sounds like what's happening to Joe. While point blank fire does, sometimes, seem a little silly - like when it happens at 600 yards :) - I like the way Spec Op fire happens. Makes things a lot less predictible. Alex

_____________________________

"Tonight a dynasty is born." Ricky Proehl, then of the Saint Louis Rams. He was right! Go Pats! Winners of Super Bowls 36, 38 and 39.

(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 8
- 6/1/2001 7:45:00 PM   
TheChin


Posts: 88
Joined: 4/20/2001
From: Cleveland,OH,USA
Status: offline
I agree with Alexandra, I think it reflects the tenacity of Russian troops well. I've learned to hit from afar, no close in stuff. I'm playing the "Preparing The Way" campaign and I have gotten 3 draws and a decisive (and that was a defend when they had to come to me). Very ugly, bloody battles. It could be my imagination but SS troops seem to get more op fire than regular rifle squads. This is as it should be IMO.

_____________________________

"Conan, what is best in life?"
"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!"

(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 9
- 6/1/2001 9:04:00 PM   
Joe Osborne

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Somewhere on a beach
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Alexandra: One thing to recall is that in 5.01 Soviet units can spontaneously recover from supression. I've seen this a lot in the Stalingrad campaign, and they tend to do it right after taking a loss. So you supress a unit, then someone kills a Russian and they start to shoot back. This sounds like what's happening to Joe.
If this is what it is it's overdone and bogus imho. Special Op fire should be "Special" (if it should be there at all)it appears far too often,and Soviet conscripts and regular army who just got off the barge at the Volga should not have this capability. Certainly not as frequently as it occurs. perhaps it should be restricted to elite units ... "Special Point Blank fire" is completely unnecessary (I mean if there's an algorithm for "Special Ops Fire" why have another!) I've played this game series since SP1 and I've played SPWAW since it arrived on the scene. I've played though a lot of the bugs people have mentioned on these forums with only minor irritation, but this one has truly given me pause as to whther I'd continue playing the game. It dramatically effects all reasonable tactics and defies tacticl logic imho. Bring on 5.02! :) Joe Osborne

_____________________________


(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 10
- 6/1/2001 9:38:00 PM   
Warrior


Posts: 1808
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: West Palm Beach, FL USA
Status: offline
I just rack all this kind of stuff up to "that's the way it is" and continue playing. However, I seem to remember Paul Vebber making a response to a similar comment in another thread. Perhaps a search for that would shed more light on the subject.

_____________________________

Retreat is NOT an option.



(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 11
- 6/1/2001 9:39:00 PM   
lnp4668

 

Posts: 517
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Arlington, TX, USA
Status: offline
I agree with Joe about Soviet infantry. Right now, they are too likely to recover spontaneously and fire back with devastating results. It is counterintuitive when you fire at a squad with a whole platoon of halftrack, then when your infantry fire, the Soviet fire back, killings a bunch of men. Kinds of defeat the purpose of combined arms with vehicles suppresss the enemy then the infantry take them out. Right now, the only way I could take out Soviet infantry is to not fire at them at all using my infantry, waiting for the soviet to fire, then counter fire (which seems more effective at routing the Soviet) Maybe a better way to portrait Soviet tenacity is to reduce the suppression they take when defend.

_____________________________

"My friends, remember this, that there are no bad herbs, and no bad men; there are only bad cultivators." Les Miserables

(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 12
- 6/1/2001 10:03:00 PM   
Alexandra


Posts: 546
Joined: 12/7/2000
From: USA
Status: offline
Right now, the only way I could take out Soviet infantry is to not fire at them at all using my infantry, waiting for the soviet to fire, then counter fire (which seems more effective at routing the Soviet) There are other ways. Mortar suppression with close assaults works well. There are more ways, but I'll keep them to myself for now, as I'm playing the Sov's in the Stalingrad league :) I think, however, that this is a good balancing thing. I say that even though it's caused me all sorts of grief in the S-grad campaign. After all the Germans get better tanks, better leadership, arguably better infantry with SS, FJ (who weren't IRL in the USSR), and SpecOps guys (who didn't fight as far as I know in pitched battles). Yet, the Soviet infantry was known for amazingly tenacious defenses, even when just off the barges. So, I'd vote for leaving this alone, unless we're also gonan change all the bonuses and pumps the Germans get. Alex

_____________________________

"Tonight a dynasty is born." Ricky Proehl, then of the Saint Louis Rams. He was right! Go Pats! Winners of Super Bowls 36, 38 and 39.

(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 13
- 6/1/2001 10:32:00 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
Well I cant comment much on the op fire issue as I have yet to have recieved my mega campaign CD and refuse to spend the days needed to d/l it. On ths issue of german units though I ahve already talked to a couple people who have 5.1 and have noted that much really changed. First off german recon units should have smgs, and secondly for the few advantages the german infantry have their cost more than makes up for it. Against a skilled enemy, numbers can make a big difference, and as of right now basically all the allied units are cheaper than german units. Even though equipment and number differences make up alot for the percieved german edge. Ive found esp against ameri inf the german inf are at a serious disadvantage. Havent fought alot against russian enemies, but when I have the numbers have always been a serious issue unless you use your units real carefully. Its all in the tactics mainly. Once again this game is meant to be balanced thus the points at least thats wat I beleive anyway, yet people are always complaining about why dont the allies have a massive numbers edge. Well its cause the germans lost IRL and this game is meant to simulate an even playing field so people can test their skill against each other. Well thats just my thoughts.

_____________________________


(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 14
- 6/1/2001 11:35:00 PM   
achappelle

 

Posts: 150
Joined: 5/11/2001
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline
The beautful thing about this game is the flexibility, adaptibility, and way you can modify so much. Hows this for a solution: go into the OOB editor and modify the stats for Russian infantry. If the instant super rally is dependant on a rally check, then tweak the rally stats for Sov infantry. Play around with the game I think that's one of the best things abou it.

_____________________________

"Molon Labe" - Leonidas @ Thermopylae (Come Get Them!!)

(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 15
- 6/2/2001 12:08:00 AM   
Joe Osborne

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Somewhere on a beach
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Aleksandr Morozov: The beautful thing about this game is the flexibility, adaptibility, and way you can modify so much. Hows this for a solution: go into the OOB editor and modify the stats for Russian infantry. If the instant super rally is dependant on a rally check, then tweak the rally stats for Sov infantry. Play around with the game I think that's one of the best things abou it.
This is true if the only method of play you use is against the AI. For those of us who only play PBEM this is a problem unless ALL of your opponents share the same adjusted OOB's. Not impossible but very difficult.
quote:

There are more ways, but I'll keep them to myself for now, as I'm playing the Sov's in the Stalingrad league I think, however, that this is a good balancing thing. I say that even though it's caused me all sorts of grief in the S-grad campaign. After all the Germans get better tanks, better leadership, arguably better infantry with SS, FJ (who weren't IRL in the USSR), and SpecOps guys (who didn't fight as far as I know in pitched battles). Yet, the Soviet infantry was known for amazingly tenacious defenses, even when just off the barges. So, I'd vote for leaving this alone, unless we're also gonan change all the bonuses and pumps the Germans get.
Soviet defensive tenacity is unquestionable, but it should be reflected in the game as troop quality % or morale factors not by assigning "Special Ops Fire". Historically, the Sovs don't win at Stalingrad due to tremendous leadersip, or better equipment they basically attrit the Germans due to larger numbers of soldiers...not to denigrate the will of the Soviet soldier mind you...but having a horde of Guards units drive though the Rumanians and encircle the Germans had to be of some help :) I don't think the "Special Ops Fire" balances anything...I think it seriously distorts tactics...think of what you just said Alex, "Right now, the only way I could take out Soviet infantry is to not fire at them at all using my infantry, waiting for the soviet to fire, then counter fire (which seems more effective at routing the Soviet)" How do the Germans conduct an advance or assault in this manner? I'll just sit here stick out my tongue and make faces at the Soviets until they fire???? :D I don't think so :) Joe Osborne [ June 01, 2001: Message edited by: Joe Osborne ]

_____________________________


(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 16
- 6/2/2001 1:12:00 AM   
Alexandra


Posts: 546
Joined: 12/7/2000
From: USA
Status: offline
I don't think the "Special Ops Fire" balances anything...I think it seriously distorts tactics...think of what you just said Alex, "Right now, the only way I could take out Soviet infantry is to not fire at them at all using my infantry, waiting for the soviet to fire, then counter fire (which seems more effective at routing the Soviet)" Actually Inp said that :) I didn't. However, I have found ways to deal with it in the Stalingrad Campaign. Initially it did throw me, too. It definately makes fighting the Sov's harder and at times has seemed unbalancing but as I've gotten used to it, I've found it less so. I think all sides get flaky chanced for Special Op fire, so that balances. I suppose one could argue forever about the Russian supression recovery, but, I don't think it's more game unblancing than the 0.1 US arty, or the USMC rifle fire advantage. It may be harder to deal with in PBeM, though, as both sides get base level qualities. As to how I deal with it, I think I'll keep that to myself 'till after we play PBeM Joe :) Alex

_____________________________

"Tonight a dynasty is born." Ricky Proehl, then of the Saint Louis Rams. He was right! Go Pats! Winners of Super Bowls 36, 38 and 39.

(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 17
- 6/2/2001 1:17:00 AM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline
Just an aside off of this comment:
quote:

Historically, the Sovs don't win at Stalingrad due to tremendous leadersip, or better equipment they basically attrit the Germans due to larger numbers of soldiers...not to denigrate the will of the Soviet soldier mind you...but having a horde of Guards units drive though the Rumanians and encircle the Germans had to be of some help
It's been said that the Germans had 90% of Stalingrad in their hands at one time. That's not an army that lost the battle of Stalingrad, at that point, but one who had basically won it. Of course they ended up losing all of that due to the encirclement, but it seems strange to me that people talk of the Germans losing at Stalingrad as though they were the natural occupants of that city and that the Soviets took it. In a sense, I suppose that's true, because when you hold 90% of the city and then lose it, you had taken possession and then 'lost it', but people seem to often think of Stalingrad in the terms of perhaps a Moscow or Leningrad, where the Germans lost because they took very little or none of the city proper. In such a case as Stalingrad, the Germans didn't lose because they were denied possession, so much, but more because the Soviets lost it and then won it back.

_____________________________


(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 18
- 6/2/2001 2:03:00 AM   
Joe Osborne

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Somewhere on a beach
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Alexandra: As to how I deal with it, I think I'll keep that to myself 'till after we play PBeM Joe :) Alex
Oh, I know how to deal with it ....corps level artillery with lots of FO's :D Joe Osborne

_____________________________


(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 19
- 6/2/2001 3:18:00 AM   
achappelle

 

Posts: 150
Joined: 5/11/2001
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline
Charles_22, I agree with your take on STalingrad, the Germans didn't lose because of anything that directly took place in Stalingrad, there were other drawn out sieges on the Eastern front, Kharkov, sevastopol for example. What caused the Germans to lose was the collapse of the puppet armies on their flanks, and the resulting encirclement. It is definite that the delay that was caused by the defense of Stalingrad allowed the Soviets to buid up their counterattack forces, but the deplotment of the German lines, and the failure by the flanks to hold were the direct reason for the defeat.

_____________________________

"Molon Labe" - Leonidas @ Thermopylae (Come Get Them!!)

(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 20
- 6/2/2001 3:19:00 AM   
achappelle

 

Posts: 150
Joined: 5/11/2001
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline
Charles_22, I agree with your take on STalingrad, the Germans didn't lose because of anything that directly took place in Stalingrad, there were other drawn out sieges on the Eastern front, Kharkov, sevastopol for example. What caused the Germans to lose was the collapse of the puppet armies on their flanks, and the resulting encirclement. It is definite that the delay that was caused by the defense of Stalingrad allowed the Soviets to buid up their counterattack forces, but the deplotment of the German lines, and the failure by the flanks to hold were the direct reason for the defeat.

_____________________________

"Molon Labe" - Leonidas @ Thermopylae (Come Get Them!!)

(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 21
- 6/2/2001 4:20:00 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
The special opfire message appearing in your turn is a display artifact, sometimes the part fo the code that generates the special opfire messege gets overruled and the mesege appears, but the enemy unit that is supposed to fire never does becasue of morale failure. Its one of those "its easier to just ignore than fix" right now...if a ASpecial opfire messege flashes up and no fire occures, well you just ignore it. The same thing happens sometimes when "point blank opfire" flashes up and a DIFFERENT unit then uses regular opfire, so it looks like a unit pont blank opfired greater than 2 hexes away. As to Specaial opfire being "whacked", well its its supposed to be EXACTLY THAT! Random fire by a desperate enemy that you don't expect. A couple of points: There are 3 seperate special opfire situations that all get checked for all units every time the circumstances are met. "General" special opfire whenever a unit moves in you LOS and you have 0 shots, "Return" opfire when you get shot and have no shots, and "point blank" when the enemy moves adjacent (if advance stance) or within 2 hexes (defend stance or in cover is C2 is off) The "point plank" kind is much more common than the other types. Note that if you are triggered for special opfire you have to pass a morale check that returns you to "pinned" status (failure of which sometimes causes the spurious messages) then after you shoot, you take a morale/experience check, failure of which causes 2-5 suppression to be added (making subsequent special opfire less likely and less accurate) Range and ROF and suppression are key componants in generating special opfire, it will happen much more often at shorter ranges than longer ones. SO the key is suppressive fire with longer range weapons (preferrably out side "point blank") Units in defend stance or "in cover" special opfire much more often than advancing units (reflecting overwatching fire) The "multiple" that is used as a rnge of random number draws for determining special opfire is: (12-ROF)*mult*range*(suppression/10+1) Mult= 15 for defend, 20 advance for Point blank and return special opfire and 30 defend and 50 advance for "regular" So a typical inf unit with no suppression, defending at range 1 and ROF=9 would be 3*15*1*1 = 45 a random(45)< experience indicates special opfire, so unless the unit is an imbicile, it will get a special opfire shot, assming it spotted the approaching enemy. Now if it had 10 suppression and the enemy was at range 2 this drop to 3*15*2*2 = 180, so now even a 90 experience unit only has a 50% chance. Now for a "regualr" opfire shot for a moving tank with ROF 6 at say 10 hexes the number jumps to 6*50*10*1 or 3000 so this is simply "dumb luck" at this range that , since its checked every hex for every moving unit, if an enemy horde is advancing you will likely get lucky every couple turns with each unit. So range and suppression are keys here, and getting "in cover" or a defend stance makes a big difference. The idea is that as you get closer, the enmy will defend itself more tenaciously and the "soak off" tactics don't work as well. At some point though, too much special opfire will cause enough suppression that the unit will be left in a retreated or even routed state even if you don't shoot at it. Strength of number s can overwhelm, but it has to be MULTIPLES of teh enemy strength, not an extra squad of two. Melee is a key ingredient in this new soup too, as in city fighting getting into melee with an enemy is a key way to eihter wipe it out or suppress it to the point of ineffectiveness quickly. The asynchronous nature of IG-HUGO games makes linear causality a problem...it isn;t logical, no, but as I explained in another thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=002684 and http://www.matrixgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=004726 Events in an IGO-HUGO turn are NOT sequential and inherantly illogical, but the idea is the results at the end of a pair of player turns are believable...NOT that they are played out in a linear and logical sequence. Something which is by definition impossible where one unit can "use all its time" before the next unit does anything! That is the whole point of special opfire! Because you can move one unit its entire turns movement,and based on what it finds, move another unit its whole movement, and so on and so on you can pack hours worth "sequential" ops in a single turn if you have enough troops. Since alot of this obviously happens simultaneously, then one is left with the problem of balancing the players "gods eye view" and ability to intricately violate all sorts of laws of time and space to advance and conduct attacks, special opfire adds back the inherant strength of the defense to respond to these machinations in some manner, albeit random. One can argue its too much or two little, but basically becasue of the abstract nature of the turn its basically a mater of personal taste. And one does not need to edit the OOBs to change this to ones taste. Turning "national characteristics" off removes the Russian "fanatical defense", Lowering experience using troop quality reduces opfire as does lowering the spotting value (as units are tougher to spot they tend) to be shot at much less often. INcreasing infantry toughness tends to reduce casualties making fire in general more suppressive but not deadly. Etc. IT pains me to continually hear floks complain they don't like an aspect of the game, and then say its too hard to change the preferences! Obviously from the divergence in opinion on every one of these topics, its impossible to please everyone, so we tried to offer as many ways to customize tthe game to individual taste as we could! You just have to be careful becasue after you play a pbem game your game preferences will be changed to those of the last pbem game you played, so after you play pbem always check your preference setings before you start a new one! [ June 01, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]

_____________________________


(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 22
- 6/2/2001 8:38:00 AM   
Alexandra


Posts: 546
Joined: 12/7/2000
From: USA
Status: offline
It's been said that the Germans had 90% of Stalingrad in their hands at one time. That's not an army that lost the battle of Stalingrad, at that point, but one who had basically won it. Of course they ended up losing all of that due to the encirclement, but it seems strange to me that people talk of the Germans losing at Stalingrad as though they were the natural occupants of that city and that the Soviets took it. In a sense, I suppose that's true, because when you hold 90% of the city and then lose it, you had taken possession and then 'lost it', but people seem to often think of Stalingrad in the terms of perhaps a Moscow or Leningrad, where the Germans lost because they took very little or none of the city proper. In such a case as Stalingrad, the Germans didn't lose because they were denied possession, so much, but more because the Soviets lost it and then won it back.[/QB][/QUOTE] I would argue otherwise. IMO, the Germans lost 6th Army and parts of 4th Panzer Army at Stalingrad because the leadership - both political and miliatry - became fixated with a tactical and not a strategic objective. The Soviet High Command did a fantastic job of using 62nd and 64th Armies to lock down the attention of the German leadership, which caused the Germans to feed more and more units into a tactical environment. Then the Soviets launched a strategic offensive designed to do to the Germans exactly what the Germans had done to the Poles, Dutch, Belgians, French, Yugo's, Greek, Russians, and to an extent the British - a strategic encirclement. IMO, Leadership on both sides played a very key factor in that ever so critical battle. Alex

_____________________________

"Tonight a dynasty is born." Ricky Proehl, then of the Saint Louis Rams. He was right! Go Pats! Winners of Super Bowls 36, 38 and 39.

(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 23
- 6/2/2001 3:10:00 PM   
Igor

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 12/11/2000
Status: offline
Returning, briefly, to the subject of this thread; there is an aspect of special op fire that isn't working. Close assaults by spontaneously rallied Soviets are way too lethal. As mentioned elsewhere, I moved a self propelled gun (Sig 150 on a Pz II hull) up behind a machine gun nest in a Stalingrad campaign battle and blew it to pieces from 50 meters away. This was the only range I could engage it from, btw; but that's beside the point. Three crew survived the destruction of the nest; they promptly turned around and close assaulted the gun. They destroyed it; and the message at the bottom of the screen informed me that they had a 78% chance of doing so. Now, after hearing all the loose talk about getting rid of supersoldiers in the new edition, I find that three concussed regular crewmen with random small arms are more dangerous to German armor than a veteran T-34. This wasn't the only such experience I've had, btw; just the most ludicrous...after all, a full, fresh squad of elite German assault engineers will never see a 50% chance of success; how did these shmoes become so potent????

_____________________________


(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 24
- 6/3/2001 4:47:00 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
A SIG is an open top, open rear weapon with no machine gun! They obviously got a lucky ro'l and "got the drop" on the lumbering SP gun and threw a grenade into it. Hardly the work of "supermen". Remember that moving adjacent to an enemy impies "very close proximity" not that you are assured a 50m standoff range from all enemy soldiers! It never ceases to amaze me how "lucky die rolls" are always "bugs". I'm really tempted to amke "little dice" in any future game so players see the die rolls with their own eyes if they want :D Unlikely events in squad leader or other board games where you see the dice fly are " the fortunes of war" but in computer games. always bugs! [ June 02, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]

_____________________________


(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 25
- 6/3/2001 5:12:00 AM   
Redleg


Posts: 1805
Joined: 5/23/2000
Status: offline
I don't have a problem with the op-fires. But the big deal is to feel free to tinker with the settings.... oh, how I wish there was more of that going on. Think the Russians are tough? Try attacking Japanese.... very high quality with large units. Soviets are a piece of cake compared to Japanese. I just started a Hungarian-Rumanian battle outside of Budapest, Jan 45. Wouldn't be worth ten minutes time without tweeking the settings.

_____________________________


(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 26
- 6/3/2001 6:05:00 AM   
Igor

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 12/11/2000
Status: offline
Ok, Paul; let's take this from the top. First, the Sig on a Pz II hull does have an AAMG. Yes, it's open topped (I was confusing it with the same gun on the Pz III hull which is closed topped); but this misses the point you glossed right over from my post... THREE MEN HAD A 78% CHANCE OF SUCCESSFULLY CLOSE ASSAULTING AN UNSUPPRESSED, MACHINE GUN EQUIPPED AFV FROM THE FRONT WITH NO ANTI-TANK WEAPONRY, EXPLOSIVES, OR INCENDIARIES WHATSOEVER! Ahem. Anyway; I have no objection to miracles; if my unit had been blown to pieces on a 1% shot I would have been duly impressed, and then slaughtered the Soviets involved to prevent them from doing it again. Fortunes of war. However, I think I can safely identify a bug when the game tells me that it was all but a done deal that this assault would work, no luck need apply. Elite assault engineers and special forces don't get percentages that good; why did these crewmen?

_____________________________


(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 27
- 6/3/2001 7:55:00 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
Excuse me, yes it does have an AAMG, but have you looked at the picture???Gee I would feel real safe behind the 2 feet of gunshield that passes for armor...the crew is fully exposed while firing - giving that thing ANY turret armor is a bit of a stretch! Elite special forces and engineers can and do get 85% hit chances. ANY unit that gets lucky can get a good hit percentage if the rolls go right! I just tested moving SIGs up adjacent to hidden russian Engineers and look at the results: SO Engineer Sqd ASSAULTING sIG33 auf Pz-II with Flamethrower hit chance 90 percent sIG33 auf Pz-II DESTROYED **** SO Engineer Sqd ASSAULTING sIG33 auf Pz-II with Flamethrower hit chance 90 percent sIG33 auf Pz-II DESTROYED **** SO Engineer Sqd ASSAULTING sIG33 auf Pz-II with Flamethrower hit chance 90 percent sIG33 auf Pz-II DESTROYED **** sIG33 auf Pz-II firing at SO Engineer Sqd, range 2 hexes, ~using 15cm sIG33 L/11~Hit Chance 4 Percent sIG33 auf Pz-II firing at SO Engineer Sqd, range 2 hexes, ~using 7.92 MG34 AAMG~Hit Chance 6 Percent sIG33 auf Pz-II firing at SO Engineer Sqd, range 2 hexes, ~using 15cm sIG33 L/11~Hit Chance 4 Percent sIG33 auf Pz-II firing at SO Engineer Sqd, range 2 hexes, ~using 7.92 MG34 AAMG~Hit Chance 5 Percent sIG33 auf Pz-II firing at SO Engineer Sqd, range 2 hexes, ~using 15cm sIG33 L/11~Hit Chance 5 Percent sIG33 auf Pz-II firing at SO Engineer Sqd, range 2 hexes, ~using 7.92 MG34 AAMG~Hit Chance 7 Percent SO Engineer Sqd ASSAULTING sIG33 auf Pz-II with Flamethrower hit chance 68 percent sIG33 auf Pz-II IMMOBILIZED OK One was 68 becasue I tried to suppress the heck out them beofre I moved adjacent...the rest are all over 85%! (and nearly ever time hidden engineers in cover assault they get 90% (the max assualt chance) AND HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT THE GAME ASUMES TROOPS MIGHT JUST HAVE A WEAPON OF BUNDLE OF GRENADES SQUIRRELED AWAY!!!! THATS WHY IT SAY MISC SMALL ARMS AS THE CREW WEAPON!!!! Who knows what they might bring out of the fort??? Maybe those three guys were out answering the call of nature and surprised the SiG? Like Squad leader the game allows for "snake eyes" to be rolled everyso often and heroic thigns to happen? ITs "realistic" in Squad leader when a crew rolls 2, but a BUG in SP because you didn't see the dice fall! I did the same test with 20 MG nests and moved 20 Sigs up to their rear, 12 of the 20 were destroyed, 6 had crews and 2 manged to rally and assault with 23% and 16% chances, immobilizing one. Sheesh this is getting to be a real waste of time...how many times will I come to this board and find... Computer rolled snake eyes on me ITS A BUG!!!! How many times did you repeat this? If you did not repeat it and find that retreated crews always get 85% kill chances (which I just did and they don't... THEN WHAT THE HECK MAKES YOU THINK ITS A BUG AND NOT A LUCKY SERIES OF DIE ROLLS!! PLEASE report bugs, if you can repeat them, but htaking an hour everyday repeating myself ad nauseum responding to folks upset that the computer got some lucky die rolls is geting old! If everytime you rolled up next to an MG nest and poped a couple 150mm rounds at it the crew streamed out and got 85% hit chnaces then that is a problem, but seeing it once or twice and not being able to repeat it is not a bug! [ June 02, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]

_____________________________


(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 28
- 6/3/2001 9:51:00 AM   
Alexandra


Posts: 546
Joined: 12/7/2000
From: USA
Status: offline
I want to agree with Paul about the assaults. I'm currently testing them, scientifically (ie noting the odds on most, if not all, that I see while playing), to see if there's some sort of trend. So far, the only fluky thing I've noticed is that snipers still seem to get higher than what I'd call reasonable asault chances. However, my own study has only about 100 entries so far and I'd not call that enough for any sort of analysis. Once I get a serious number of results, I'll post them here. Alex

_____________________________

"Tonight a dynasty is born." Ricky Proehl, then of the Saint Louis Rams. He was right! Go Pats! Winners of Super Bowls 36, 38 and 39.

(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 29
- 6/4/2001 5:09:00 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
Hopefully you are using "alt-L" combat.txt logging to automatically keep the results for you! Snipers typically get higher chances beacue they are "especially small targets" and are assumed to be stealthy as well, being better able to remain hidden and strike the tank unawares.

_____________________________


(in reply to Joe Osborne)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Special Op Fire and Point Blank Fire seems whacked Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.938