v5.03

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

v5.03

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 >> v5.03

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

v5.03 - 6/26/2001 11:09:00 PM

Warrior

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

I wanted to comment on v5.03. I've been trying it and while it does seem to be more "true to life" than v5.02 (but then, what wouldn't?), I don't think I'm happy with it. While having rifle fire be effective from 1 - 2 hexes may be realistic, it is going to seriously screw up a LOT of scenarios. Not only are there many that have long ranges involved, but what if there aren't any MG's or artillery to bring to bear? Perhaps v5.01 was too much, but at least you got the satisfaction of watching the enemy get mowed down. I don't want to melee, and I doubt any soldier liked hand-to-hand. I want to stand off about 200 - 300 yards and pot the enemy with well-aimed shots from my trusty M-1. Less risky that way. v5.03 may be realistic, but will it add to playability? It will certainly require me to adapt my tactics to the new circumstances ("Adapt or die," I always say!). Perhaps we'll all just have to set the preferences where we think it's right... with the added complications for online play and PBEM that will entail. Whatever, I'll go with the group consensus when everyone has had a chance to try it out. Matrix guys, you're doing a helluva great job, this is not a criticism of your work.

_____________________________

Retreat is NOT an option.

Post #: 1

- 6/27/2001 1:14:00 AM

David Heath

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

The fact of the matter is the v5.2 caused much more problems with the scenarios then anything. v5.3 is working very well with the current scenarios.

_____________________________

(in reply to Warrior)

Post #: 2

- 6/27/2001 2:17:00 AM

Warrior

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

David, I agree v5.03 works with the scenarios. I just finished one using 5.03. However, I'm still not very happy with it. It may be more realistic, but it makes any attack incredibly difficult. Since defenders will be entrenched and usually only shoot when I move, and that means I will lose more men due to the ratio. So my question is: how can I attack without moving? Artillery does some damage, but, oops!, I ran out of ammo. Melee is the real Catch-22. If you jump into a hex with an enemy squad and take fire from any other point, you can't melee. Nor can you melee if your squad is "not in good standing," or doesn't have enough movement or shots left. And since you get pinned by the enemy squad, you can't melee on the next turn either (because you're not in good standing, and so on, and so on, for turns on end). My tanks and MG's may as well have well been firing cotton candy, but an enemy crewman 6 hexes away could knock off my guys consistently. My opinion is that it will take a 10 to 1 advantage for an attacker to get very far using v5.03. You guys are doing a teriffic job, but for now I think I'll stick to 5.01. [ June 26, 2001: Message edited by: Warrior ]

_____________________________

Retreat is NOT an option.

(in reply to Warrior)

Post #: 3

- 6/27/2001 3:10:00 AM

George Marker

Posts: 20
Joined: 12/24/2000
From: Melbourne, Florida, USA
Status: offline

I just tried downloading version 5.3 twice this afternoon and after it finished, I received an error message stating that there was not a valid zip file available. I ignored the message and went to explorer and tried opening and have had no luck. Has anyone else experienced any problems with this download. Thanks for any input. George

_____________________________

George (old salt)

(in reply to Warrior)

Post #: 4

- 6/27/2001 3:18:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

Its called moving in bounds. You fire with some of your troops to suppres the enemy and then advance with a group of others, alternate and repeat. The current scenarios can be won with 5.03, but you will take more casualties typically than before. THe days of a 600 casualty to 5 ratio are over, but you can still get 200 - 50. Novice players tend to be fixated on wiping out enemy squads, you can do that, but its far better to keep them heavily suppressed and fixed and work around them. If defending don't waste shots on troops that have gone to ground, but make sure you pin as many attacking units as possible and use concetrated MG fire and guns to wipe them out or send them packing. Even some who really disliked 5.02 started coming around and 5.03 is to me spot on.

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Warrior)

Post #: 5

- 6/27/2001 3:36:00 AM

Charles2222

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

Does this mean that the days of playing those Uber-Poles with the 19 man infantry squads, whilst giving the AI the advantage and playing as "hard battle" are over?

_____________________________

(in reply to Warrior)

Post #: 6

- 6/27/2001 3:44:00 AM

David Heath

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

Hi Warrior I would not play with v5.1. Here is why.... You can adjust every feature of the game with the setting options. Use those instead. You get a much better results you want and all the fixes you need. [ June 26, 2001: Message edited by: David Heath ]

_____________________________

(in reply to Warrior)

Post #: 7

- 6/27/2001 3:55:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

I just tried it George and it wporked fine the zip contains the install exe. I'd try D/L'ing again.

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Warrior)

Post #: 8

- 6/27/2001 4:03:00 AM

Warrior

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

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: Its called moving in bounds. You fire with some of your troops to suppres the enemy and then advance with a group of others, alternate and repeat.

I'm familiar with the fire and maneuver team concept, and that is obviously the way to go. In the scenario I just finished I was tempted to go around the enemy squads that were giving me trouble, much as I would have bypassed a pillbox. Pillboxes, however, won't come back at me to hit me from the rear. I don't think it's sound military doctrine to leave a lot of enemy troops behind you as you advance. But, I continue working with v5.03 to find my "comfort level." And David, you are right, there are many more options that can be tweaked. I'm just an old Capricorn who doesn't like having his rut rocked.

_____________________________

Retreat is NOT an option.

(in reply to Warrior)

Post #: 9

- 6/27/2001 4:07:00 AM

soldat31

Posts: 29
Joined: 6/8/2001
From: Nashville, TN, USA
Status: offline

I downloaded and installed 5.3 this afternoon with no problems. I've got it up and running and it's pretty good. I was one of the skeptical ones about 5.2, but it started growing on me. 5.3 looks even better. Thanks Matrix!!!

_____________________________

Was ist los?

(in reply to Warrior)

Post #: 10

- 6/27/2001 4:32:00 AM

Michael Peck

Posts: 45
Joined: 7/7/2000
Status: offline

Dave and Paul, While you're both here, can you tell us how to speed up the animations? Someone posted directions a while back (something to do with the command line "impatient") but they didn't work. Ideally, I'd like to just one animation per attack per unit rather than a separate animation for each individual weapon a unit fires. Mike

_____________________________

http://www.themilitarybookreview.com

(in reply to Warrior)

Post #: 11

- 6/27/2001 4:39:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

quote:

I don't think it's sound military doctrine to leave a lot of enemy troops behind you as you advance.

That is the basic premise of the blitzkrieg, and manuever warfare - you establish where the surfaces and gaps are, then exploit the gaps, and then mop up once you have achieved your objectives. That is why Blitzkrieg tactics are so effective. Now at the tactial level its harder to achieve, but the key is to keep the enemy from shooting at you effectively while you move and force him to move under your fire while you hunker down. Suppresion reduces teh effectiveness of fire, so even if hthe enemy is shooting at you, if the suppression is high, the hit chances will be low and your casualties will be minimized. I will see if I can dig that up Mike - but IIRC its just the command line swicth /impatient after the mech.exe [ June 26, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Warrior)

Post #: 12

- 6/27/2001 5:00:00 AM

Tombstone

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

Thank goodness the defense has been given the leg's its always deserved. As a result of the way infantry took casualties in the past realistic tactics for defending weren't feasible. This should make things much more realistic. To hell with it breaking scenarios. New world, better world... better play in the end. Tomo

_____________________________

(in reply to Warrior)

Post #: 13

- 6/27/2001 5:14:00 AM

Wild Bill

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline

So far my biggest thing with 5.3 is the adjusting of my thinking to the new combat routines. When you've played one way so long, changing like this does make for some rough situations till you adjust to it. I'm beginning to like it. I've played with it all day, 3 different scenarios, all mostly infantry. It made for some interesting play for sure. I can understand Warrior's reticence on the change, but I think it needs more time to get the feel of it. Let me play it some more still. Also, let me say that the concept may look good in formula, but it MUST be tested thoroughly in the game. This is not a slam on the effort of those who have produced it. My thanks to all of you for trying so hard to perfect the system! I know Paul V has spent many hours on this along with Tom Proudfoot. Let's keep working with the major combat routine change and see if indeed it is much more realistic. I think it might be, but want to try some more. George, I sent you the file...Wild Bill

_____________________________

In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Warrior)

Post #: 14

- 6/27/2001 5:52:00 AM

Warrior

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

quote:

Originally posted by Tombstone: Thank goodness the defense has been given the leg's its always deserved. As a result of the way infantry took casualties in the past realistic tactics for defending weren't feasible. This should make things much more realistic.

Thanks a lot, Tomo, I'm sure YOU like it, but I'm the one getting his ass shot off by the Russian defense in your North of Psel scenario! :D

_____________________________

Retreat is NOT an option.

(in reply to Warrior)

Post #: 15

- 6/27/2001 6:19:00 AM

JimY

Posts: 28
Joined: 5/16/2000
From: St. Louis, MO USA
Status: offline

I have not started playing 5.3 yet, but I have a question. If it is going to take longer to attack why not go into the editor and increase the turn lenghth of a scenario.

_____________________________

(in reply to Warrior)

Post #: 16

- 6/27/2001 7:05:00 AM

Panzer Leo

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

Great job, Paul !!! I've been testing 5.3 for several hours now and it gives you a much better feeling for infantry tactics. It's the best routine SP had so far and the days of simple infantry shoot outs are over...entrenchments work pretty good now and assaults are really a test for the brain (or a question of how many bodies you can throw at them)... :D Results (casualties) are excellent randomized. I had MGs causing up to 6 Kills !!! in one burst under perfect conditions (well, at least perfect for the MG) and almost no effect, except suppression, when firing on troops that stayed in cover and kept their heads down...awesome :D For folks who like to see a bit more results on their fire a little adjustment on infantry toughness to 90 or 80% should do it... Thanks, Paul !

_____________________________

[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 Warrior)

Post #: 17

- 6/27/2001 7:09:00 AM

Banjo

Posts: 717
Joined: 3/10/2001
From: Southwest Missouri
Status: offline

We may need longer scenarios to effect the fire and manuever way of play. We don't need more forces on the map, just the time to move them.

_____________________________

(in reply to Warrior)

Post #: 18

- 6/27/2001 7:35:00 AM

Cona

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

quote:

Originally posted by Banjo: We may need longer scenarios to effect the fire and manuever way of play.

We can even need more arty ammo ... tuned down a few versions ago. Saludos a Todos, Cona.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Warrior)

Post #: 19

- 6/27/2001 8:23:00 AM

Tombstone

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

LOL! Oh crap. I gotta play it again dont I, I kept upping the infantry defenders cause defending was just so hard for the poor AI's. Now maybe a rifle regiment in the defense really will be a rifle regiment in the defense. Oh, this will make cracking the defensive line so much more satisfying. No more of the find all the enemy infantry and kill them all and move on. It wont be worth the pain often times to root out all the entrenched infantry. A real strength on the defense makes a lot more situations in SPWAW more realistic. The best part of this is the change in our tactics for dealing with entrenched infantry. It just used to be too easy... You never felt like you had to suppress and maneuver, cause by then the squad would be decimated. Tomo

_____________________________

(in reply to Warrior)

Post #: 20

- 6/27/2001 8:51:00 AM

JimY

Posts: 28
Joined: 5/16/2000
From: St. Louis, MO USA
Status: offline

I want to commend Matrix Games and Mr. Vebber on a great upgrade and game. I have always liked SPWAW, especially when you started receiving info on the results of a tank hit, like the radio mast was destroyed. In 5.3, I feel that infantry combat is as realistic as a turn based computer game can get. Terrain gives the proper defense and .30 caliber MG is now deadly against troops in the open. I played the scenario with the US assaulting the Germans in the bocage country around St. Lo. MG was deadly against infantry in fields so I used smoke to cover my advance. Similarly, my .30 MG mowed down counter-attacking Germans moving in the field. The bocages provided great cover against even MG fire from all put 1-2 range. Even at close range rifles were only effective against troops in the open, not in bocage. However, 1 or 2 range the thompson submachinegun was effective. By covering my advance with smoke and suppressing infantry with mortar fire, I took the objectives in 17 turns. I increased the scenario from 15 to 20 turns before starting. I think that in 5.3 the scenarios do need to be lengthened if they mostly involve infantry v. infantry. Great game. [ June 26, 2001: Message edited by: JimY ]

_____________________________

(in reply to Warrior)

Post #: 21

- 6/27/2001 10:00:00 AM

Banjo

Posts: 717
Joined: 3/10/2001
From: Southwest Missouri
Status: offline

I have been able to download 5.2 and 5.3, but havn't had time to play with either update. My question is, does moving only one hex or at the most two per turn in the open, draw fire? I ask this as one hex movement might be enough to simulate moving under cover of the the terrain in the hex. I might not be able to play for a day or two and curiosity is is getting the best of me.

_____________________________

(in reply to Warrior)

Post #: 22

- 6/27/2001 10:13:00 AM

Mark Ezra

Posts: 340
Joined: 12/29/2000
From: Jasmin Ranch, Acton CA
Status: offline

I am currently testing scens with V3. They are going great. The bit of changes made from V2 to V3 have created a fine balance. I seriously doubt games will run longer or anything else. While I defer to the Grog desire for as much accuracy as possible it is always important (to me)that the game is fun. V3 strikes that kind of balance.

_____________________________

All Hail Marx and Lennon

(in reply to Warrior)

Post #: 23

- 6/27/2001 11:05:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

Thanks Guys - kudos go to Tom Proudfoot for putting up with my Columbo impression..."ah, Sir...just one more thing..." and of course David Heath... moving only one hex is considered "cautious movement and is 3 times less vulnerable than moving 2 or more. You often have to balance pressing ahead quickly against the casualties you will take. Overwatching fires are key to minimizing those casualties. [ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Warrior)

Post #: 24

- 6/27/2001 3:54:00 PM

panda124c

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior: I don't think it's sound military doctrine to leave a lot of enemy troops behind you as you advance.

Oh I don't know, against the AI you can set up MGs to cover the bypassed troops then when you take a victory square in the rear they come running to take it back, right into your MGs. :D

_____________________________

(in reply to Warrior)

Post #: 25