Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 3 years and nothing changed

 
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 >> RE: 3 years and nothing changed Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/12/2005 4:07:04 AM   
Korpraali V


Posts: 659
Joined: 7/11/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

The USMC had been in constant service since 1900. Many of the regt and higher officers were WWI veterans.



You can change 'USMC' to any other nation in this game and it's still true. Sometimes it was even the problem because it took too long to adopt new ideas (fighting tanks etc).

Many nations have some cases that gives them combat experience or something that can be counted as it (US - Nicaragua, Japan - China, China - Japan, France - North Africa, UK - India, Germany - Spain, USSR - Nohomon...).

Often (except in cases of China and Japan) these affected only to minor parts of whole army.

In my view British had fought longer so their experience should be better in the beginning, but US morale should be higher than British (if you fight a year and always seem to loose it can give you some second thoughts...).

Of course hard training makes you more prepared than light training but it is still not the same. In this game it probably can be seen as some 'experience' 'cause it can't be counted anywhere else.

(And experience is not the same than huge material superiority.)

(Don't know where I'm getting to... just some thoughts...)


_____________________________


(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 61
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/12/2005 10:44:24 AM   
soldier

 

Posts: 199
Joined: 5/24/2005
Status: offline 		A number of posts have mentioned "just change these ratings with the editor" . How do you do it ? Are you talking about the Oobs editor or scenario editor ?
As previously mentioned using the troop quality ratings button in the preference screen is not able to portray the qualities of some fighters. It always bumps experience and morale to the same levels so you cant use Tito's partisans in 43 with morale (and maybe leadership) higher then experience or well trained French with lower morale in 1940. A split control for these ratings would open up many new possiblilites in the game. From a gameplay perspective at least, ratings at 30 and 25 don't work well for troops and are maybe a bit tough on the minor combatants so how can i boost their morale ?

Also noticed some funny bulgarian ratings in 43 battles with morale at 244 and individual platoons going up to 99 or as low as 4, and a base morale of 6 in 44.
Check it out yourself, there is some error there

(in reply to Korpraali V)
Post #: 62
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/12/2005 5:51:39 PM   
omegaall


Posts: 317
Joined: 7/28/2003
Status: offline 		With respect to this:
quote:

ORIGINAL: soldier

A number of posts have mentioned "just change these ratings with the editor" . How do you do it ? Are you talking about the Oobs editor or scenario editor ?

I gather people want to change it in the Mech.exe file

There is no way to change it in the OOB editor. This is not SPWW2. Also I suspet that may be a modifier to a base set of values. Though I have not inspect that game yet.

Any other alterations you may do within the confines of the game scenario editor are from my understanding simple modifires to the base set with out really doing what appears to be the current demands.

What happened to the "code" writers in here??? Why not work on an editor to do what you want??

With respect to this thread and some expressed comments and feelings I would like to say:

KYIQF GAVUZ AUIBE WCBND
LIPEA SAZSQ HBXVL NPDHD
YIJPM OMWHT MXJTE PQCKJ
AAJQJ MVQFH IURSH PJKHI
CKWXU GJDXE RWTFJ VOMFV
WBTDH YPNLX YNVPW UIZHL
KVXOQ VEQCW NEAZE RHPQG
PATGR AMSWT RYUEZ ELZAX
OYYZA XZDNZ AZUTA KZYYB
GMWEV PRQRH DACPQ IPEPU
HEXKO BMJXO USDEB WRUHH
TFGWW HGMQP MLYBB SDONW
PWYJB HZPYE OZWDG GDQDO
WQCDX ZNAOK OBOHC AHWGI
JZGET XXRNJ USYXB PEAYY
HQGUS QYOJR WQVCK AQZPW
QVSXY FALGD WWYDQ SJGOM
ZIMAU WNYTF HMXHI ARRAQ
QAWIJ BKBMD KXDKB NGRUN
MWEAB IKTAL IQQIF RAOGI
GQSIL RZLLZ HWAPV SZPXZ
BFBTU JGLCK RPRKT HDBUN
JBMIN OWGKI QFUVZ

Oh by the way simple Enigma encription 4 rotors.




(in reply to soldier)
Post #: 63
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/13/2005 2:41:33 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline 		Flashfyre took issue with the ratings of the Brits, but let me counter with this -- Britain suffered the loss of virtually an entire generation in WWI. Most Brits were loath to go back to France and do it again. For 1939-40, at least, their ratings seem to be relatively in keeping with their willingness to fight on the continent once more.

Frankly, I don't blame them. However, given the Brits' high morale and given the fact that they were virtually alone after the blitz of 1940, they really started to hunker down and realize that they were fighting for national survival.

This point illustrates the difficulty of assigning subjective ratings to a nation's army. Many factors come into play. The quality of potential recruits, the quality of training, the quality of weapons, the general economic situation of the country -- it all plays a part in the evaluation of "effectiveness in battle".

Many noted authors have attempted to this very thing, but they leave out those intangible factors which cannot be measured. This alone makes the work of the late Trevor Dupuy suspect.

It is not my intention to get involved in a lengthy academic discussion --we are talking about a game.

Unfortunately, I brought it up, so you guys knock yourselves out with it.

_____________________________


(in reply to omegaall)
Post #: 64
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/13/2005 6:49:49 AM   
Korpraali V


Posts: 659
Joined: 7/11/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
One thing that also makes things difficult is that there can be huge differences within one year or even less. For example Finland 1944: in June defences collapsed in Ishtmus of Karelia. However after one month morale was as good as it had been during Winter war (generally, of course again...). After a month same happened northern side of lake Laatokka (Ladoga).

But you just can't expect everything from a game... it's a game.

...but I like it



_____________________________


(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 65
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/13/2005 4:58:21 PM   
Major Destruction


Posts: 881
Joined: 8/10/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

As a general rule, the conqueror nations (Germany and Japan), seem to be pretty damn good.

In game terms, it's the way it should be.


Which is why the USMC troop experience is better in 1945 than Germany and better than the armies that actually defeated Germany

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin A hard core of experienced officers and non-coms served as the core for a future expansion, which came to pass after Pearl Harbor. A policy of splitting and expanding, amoeba-like, guaranteed that a uniform quality would be assured. This policy was maintained by the Marine Corps throughout the war.


This is what happened with the British army in 1941-2. The experienced officer and OR strength was diluted by large influx of new recruits which drove down the average fighting ability of the army. However the fighting ability of troops at the front was not affected by this influx of new manpower as much as the general lowing of ability of the officers leading them. The same could be said of the Italian army in North Africa, which fought pretty well with German leadership. This might indicate that the experience level of Italian Troops should be only marginally lower than that of the German troops and possibly equal to that of the British while the leadership ratings should be lower than both. At the same time the troop ratings for the ANZAC and Indian troops should be higher than both the British and Italian troops in 1941-42. As it stands, the experience levels for Britain, ANZAC, Canada!, and the USMC are equal in 41-42.

It must also be remembered that the German army had large influxes of new recruits in N Africa and the eastern front but the German method of assimilation into existing fighting forces prevented a serious degradation of troop quality.



_____________________________

They struggled with a ferocity that was to be expected of brave men fighting with forlorn hope against an enemy who had the advantage of position......knowing that courage was the one thing that would save them.

Julius Caesar, 57 BC

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 66
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/15/2005 2:24:05 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Greetings,

I, for one, am very happy with the 8.4 nationality ratings.

Every nation has brave soldiers. Every nation has heroes. But that is NOT what is being represented here by the nationality ratings.

Instead, what is being represented is an evaluation of overall combat effectiveness in battle. Ask the Waffen SS units that were fanatically brave, but got mauled (by Wehrmacht standards) in their first battles.

I think that the 8.4 nationality ratings are a tremendous improvement over previous versions. I think that the 8.4 national ratings are the most correct evaluations of "average" combat effectiveness by nation that I have seen to date. Kudos to the Matrix Games staff for a job very well done.

(in reply to Sturmpionier)
Post #: 67
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/15/2005 3:53:42 AM   
AndrewC

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 9/5/2005
Status: offline 		nt

< Message edited by AndrewC -- 9/28/2005 9:18:14 AM >

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 68
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/15/2005 5:19:53 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		German General Guderian has been quoted as saying, "The Soviets were first class fighters from the start. In time they learned how to be first class soldiers." That is what the 8.4 national ratings show very well.

It is one thing to have a collection of brave first class fighters (think of a group of 12 Bruce Lees gathered together into a squad). But as an actual combat unit of soldiers they might rate out as a 25. Do not confuse bravery and fighting spirit with effective combat ability as a combat unit.

Also, remember that the national ratings are averages. They do not reflect the extremes of combat effectiveness that every army showed. I'm willing to believe that every army has at least a few elite troops capable of very high combat effectiveness. And vice versa. But I think the 8.4 national ratings do a very good job of showing national average combat effectiveness.

I have no complaints with the 8.4 national ratings whatsoever. Way better than previous versions.

(in reply to AndrewC)
Post #: 69
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/15/2005 7:47:15 AM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline 		This is why I'm using version 8.3. I'm not going against the grain of Matrix and I have the highest respect for Michael Wood. Without going into details, I've always been for a little higher morale for many of the minor nations, in fact all the way around. It has led to some "heated" discussions in the past during the periods of development of SPWAW.

I will tell you why. When it comes to playing a scenario. If you have units in the 40 range (or less!) of morale and experience, then you will not be doing much playing. Most of your units will simply fold...turn and run. Units with ratings of 30 or less are to all intent and purpose, useless in a game.

I say this after the exprience of designing nearly a thousand scenarios for all versions of Steel Panthers, from the very first version, for which I did design over 200 scenarios, up until this version, for which I've designed over 200 scenarios, including the campaign scenarios.

Not everyone agrees with me. That's okay. But only rarely, let me repeat, only rarely will you ever find any nation with morale and experience in the 40s or less that can do anything in a real firefight.

This is my strong feeling. If you want to play the game it has to be playable. In order to do that, I on many occasions still have to go through a nation in a scenario and change the morale and experience of every unit to portray my concept from history of the real battle. That is a lot of work (thank God for Fred Chlanda's SPWAW editor!) but its worth it.

And while I don't always fully agree with Andrew's expressions of anger (or that of some others here either), I understand his point of view and hist intensity as to the Romanians and other nations. I haven't read every post here, since they go on and on and on, many repeating the same thing.

So as KG Erwin has suggested, for those unhappy with the current state of affairs, the beauty of SPWAW is versatility. If you can't do it any other way, use the preferences menu to make your Romanians, or any other minor nation as fierce as you want. Double their combat values if you have to do so and see if that evens the odds.

Perhaps someone has already expressed this, but I wanted to give my point of view based on my personal experience.

I hope I haven't offended anyone but I do stand by my point of view resolutely!

Wild Bill

< Message edited by Wild Bill -- 9/15/2005 7:53:42 AM >

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 70
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/16/2005 12:58:54 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I wonder why people give USMC a 45 because they had not been in combat but rate the Germans as 65 before they had been in any combat.

I feel most of the large nations are inflated and this makes the smaller countries worse then they actually were.
I'd say any trained but not combat experianced unit should be around a 50. Let the equipment be the advantage. In SPWAW we don't really fight correctly. German units should be 50 exp in Poland and maybe 55 in France but then they should also have air support (Stuka) that would disrupt the enemy forces before actual contact was made.

Since most players don't like battles decided by air or arty we use these morale ratings.
Germany would not have won in France 1940 without airpower the German "morale" rating was not enough by it's self to defeat the French.

Give the smaller nations morale of 90 but keep them in their national equipment and Nations like Soviets with 60 morale and T-34 will still win the battle. If your going to put them in German equipment and raise their morale then you are really just using German troops under a new name.

It used to be you could "pay" for morale before a battle. Even minor nations could then have "veteran" troops.
If you design a scenario or campaign consider this. Have the forces involved been in combat prior to the battle you are designing? How recent? How did they perform. Rate them according to that. Trained but untried should be around 50 with "Elite" being those over 70 and Elite means good recruits, good training good equipment and a record of success in actual combat against "good" enemy forces. If you are going to forgo the use of historical arty or air present in the battle then up the side that had it a little and lower the side that was impacted by the lack of arty/air support a little to reflect the effect of those absent forces. (In France 1940 you make the French a little lower to show they have been subjected to recent air attacks)

The morale use for battles is not a reflection of national courage or abilty but used to show performance on the field. Good troops with a bad "High Command" are given lower ratings. (again France 1940 is an example)

Don't look at the ratings and take them as commentary but as another rating used by the program to achive historic result when historic forces are opposed.

Many persons here who have fought me in online or PBEM battles can attest to the fact that I rarely use any forces other then minor countries. (Italy/Romania/Hungrey/Holland)
And while I don't win every battle I manage to draw quite often and win every once in a while. You have to plan and fight battles according to how your troops perform. You can't fight with lower morale troops in the same fashion as if you are running around with SS or Guards. Also adjust battles according to this. Don't ask the other player to assault your dug in SS with his French Cav in a battle of even points. Let the lower side dig in and take a smaller ratio.

Lower rated troops do best on larger maps. (where they are not packed into arty kill zones) Use the map and shelter your troops from enemy fire during movement.

However in the end in SPWAW it is the equipment that matters most. If your gun can't kill the enemy then your morale don't matter much. If it can then it is up to you to get the percentage up through tactics.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/16/2005 1:03:45 PM >

_____________________________






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

(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 71
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/16/2005 4:43:34 PM   
VikingNo2


Posts: 2918
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: NC
Status: offline 		Mogami, I agree with you for the most part. The levels are so low now that even on big maps, some of these countries will run at first contact. I am a big fan of playing the Italians and the Poles

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 72
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/16/2005 10:49:13 PM   
Major Destruction


Posts: 881
Joined: 8/10/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline 		I ave to echo the statements made by Wild Bill. While very low experience numbers make a force almost not worth playing, I think the experience level of 70 is some kind of threshhold value which is disproportionaye with the rest of the scale. This appears to make a unit with exp=70 much more effective than a unit with exp=65 or even exp=69.

I wonder if anyone has noticed this too?

Morale is a curious feature when coupled with experience.
For example a unit with high experience (exp>69) and fairly high morale will stand and fight but once suppressed, often stands and dies.
A similar unit with high experience and lowr morale will retreat on taking casualties but recover quickly to fight again, effectively.

I used this recently in one scenario of the as-yet unreleased France campaign to the effect that French units will fall back under fire to reinforce a defensive line behind. This stiffens the defence nicely and makes the player work harder to break through.

_____________________________

They struggled with a ferocity that was to be expected of brave men fighting with forlorn hope against an enemy who had the advantage of position......knowing that courage was the one thing that would save them.

Julius Caesar, 57 BC

(in reply to VikingNo2)
Post #: 73
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/16/2005 11:09:23 PM   
Swamprat


Posts: 129
Joined: 8/30/2005
From: Shrewsbury UK
Status: offline 		Well, it's been said many times so far, but this is a game. Not implying 'only' a game, but to get a game to model real life is difficult.

Maybe 'Experience' should be given another name, 'cos it appears to be causing a lot of confusion. It doesn't just affect actual experience, but training and even army culture, ie. Majority of German troops who fought British Paras at Arnhem/Oosterbeek were in fact completely green and had been thrown together into ad-hoc battle formations, something the Germans were famous for. These troops performed brilliantly because of training, army culture and ethos, good staffwork, experienced cadres in the right places.
I think that when troops in the game are given 'experience' ratings, it is an attempt to recreate not bravery or actual experience but their performance in the war. Examples - If Brits are given experience levels that reflect empire experience, then in 1940 battles they will do quite well against Germans, leaving one to think 'hang on, how come they didn't do so well in real life'. Fact is, Germans were trained in modern warfare, Brits were trained to beat down natives and march towards enemy trenches with artillery support.
With Rumanians, Italians, etc. setting their Experience levels is an attempt to recreate an effect in the game that reflects leadership, training, and how they actually fared in reality. And because the game AI is just a computer AI, sometimes you have to skew things a lot to get the desired results.

There are problems of course, brought about by the sheer complexity of the war. For instance, British Eighth army in 1943 was an experienced, battle hardened force. The British troops of the First Army however, in exactly the same time period, were green, poorly equipped and led by optimists with little idea of what they were doing - Cue the disaster at Kasserine. So, when doing the OOb for 43, which Brits do you represent?
Frankly it's not always possible to get it right, regardless of what you do.

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Wild Bill's last point though. Make troops less than 40 in this game and they become nearly useless. Even at 45, though you do get to have more if True Troop cost is on, you'll spend most of the battle pressing the rally button until it yells back at you 'Stop Hitting Me!' . And in the end, as it's a Game, and even though we'd like realism, it has to be playable. I'd love to be able to play Hungary or Italy, in 8.4, but unless my online or PBEM opponent is happy to let me remove the Historic Troop levels then I just don't pick them. By the same token I like Historic Germans but daren't purchase allies in same Game because it would be a waste of points. Experience of smaller countries, and Russia at beginning, needs to be raised a bit, and morale needs to be raised a lot.

BTW, is HTH a Mod that goes in my mod file, or a different game altogether? And where can I get it?

_____________________________

[IMG]http://i326.photobucket.com/albums/k436/Swamprat98/need_help_3_126.jpg[/IMG]

(in reply to VikingNo2)
Post #: 74
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/17/2005 12:44:34 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline 		Some excellent points have been raised, but the debate on "combat effectiveness" as related to historical wargames has been argued back & forth since the early boardgame days.

To achieve reasonably historical results, back in the 60s the German units almost invariably had higher "attack factors" than their Allied counterparts. In a weird way, this abstraction gave affirmation to some writers' assertions that the Germans were innately superior soldiers.

In SPWaW, we have an immensely complex interaction of "factors" that determine combat results. I remember an intense discussion from a few years ago on a thread I started called "Is it the Man or the Weapon?".

While we can argue the actual numbers on the experience/leadership/morale ratings, I AM glad that SPWaW allows for changes in these values to occur for each nation from year to year. While the quality of the weapons may improve, the quality of the soldiers manning them may not (the Germans are a good example), with the nadir being reached in 1945.

The US Marines, by contrast, improved both their weapons and the quality of the average Gyrene -- many things contributed to this, including the increase of combat vets being rotated home to serve as instructors for newly-forming units, and the longer training cycles for officers, non-coms and enlisted men. Without this, the horrific casualty lists of 1944-45 would've been much worse.

Another thing that I DO love about SPWaW is the concept of "National Characteristics". This establishes a unique identity for each of the "majors", but doesn't descend into stereotyping because those variable exp/ldr/mor ratings exist. Thus, each country can have heroic units, and those who didn't perform so well under the stress of combat. In other words, no nation is necessarily pigeon-holed into a slot.

So, does anyone really want to insert a "revisionist" or "politically correct" norm for all of the combatants represented in the game? I emphatically do NOT want that to happen.

_____________________________


(in reply to Korpraali V)
Post #: 75
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/17/2005 12:59:02 AM   
Goblin


Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline 		I agree 100% with WB about the numbers. I think 60 should be what a country is based off of. So you might have some 60's, maybe a couple 65's, a few 55's, and the rare 50 or 70. Even troops with a 50 are not fun to play (for the majority of gamers, like me, who want to be able to do something).


Goblin

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 76
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/17/2005 1:09:47 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Goblin

I agree 100% with WB about the numbers. I think 60 should be what a country is based off of. So you might have some 60's, maybe a couple 65's, a few 55's, and the rare 50 or 70. Even troops with a 50 are not fun to play (for the majority of gamers, like me, who want to be able to do something).


Goblin


Goblin, are you referring to human vs human play, or against the AI, or both? I'm starting to think that these new ratings are geared towards making battles against the AI a bit tougher, esp. if you're playing as the Russians or Brits in a long campaign. In other words, in early battles against the Finns or Germans, you're SUPPOSED to get your butt kicked.

< Message edited by KG Erwin -- 9/17/2005 1:13:48 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 77
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/17/2005 1:21:44 AM   
Goblin


Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline 		There is getting your butt kicked, and having fun doing it, and then there is just feeling like you can do absolutely nothing, which is NO fun. I have played long campaigns as just about every nation (missed maybe 4 or 5 of them), and feel that the minor nations numbers are too low in comparison with the major nations. I have played several minor nations in H2H, and believe it to be more fun, although somewhat more challenging, for sure. I also disagree with most anything that says 'you are supposed to get your butt kicked'. What I am supposed to do is have fun. Thats what counts. If the L/M/E rating were able to be set seperately, I do not believe there would be half the argument there is. If I want to set my French troops at 60 E, I'm stuck setting L at 60, and M at 60 too. Maybe Mike can seperate them?


Goblin

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 78
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/17/2005 2:29:44 AM   
AndrewC

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 9/5/2005
Status: offline 		nt

< Message edited by AndrewC -- 9/28/2005 9:18:33 AM >

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 79
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/17/2005 2:34:09 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		And now you're calling people Nazis. Nice one, pal. Real nice...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to AndrewC)
Post #: 80
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/17/2005 2:37:41 AM   
AndrewC

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 9/5/2005
Status: offline 		nt

< Message edited by AndrewC -- 9/28/2005 9:18:48 AM >

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 81
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/17/2005 2:41:30 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		I suggest that instead of coming in here and shouting at people, you expend a little of your pent-up self-righteous fury in rectifying the problem. Make a "proper" Romanian OOB and post it, so people can pick it up if they so choose.

Until you've done even a fraction of the work the developers have done, you have NO RIGHT to use that sort of tone in here!

But you're not going to do that, are you? It's soooo much easier to mouth off.

< Message edited by Terminus -- 9/17/2005 2:45:10 AM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to AndrewC)
Post #: 82
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/17/2005 2:44:31 AM   
Goblin


Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I suggest that instead of coming in here and shouting at people, you expend a little of your pent-up righteous fury in rectifying the problem. Make a "proper" Romanian OOB and post it, so people can pick it up if they so choose.

Until you've done even a fraction of the work the developers have done, you have NO RIGHT to use that sort of tone in here!

But you're not going to do that, are you? It's soooo much easier to mouth off.



_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 83
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/17/2005 2:51:56 AM   
AndrewC

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 9/5/2005
Status: offline 		nt

< Message edited by AndrewC -- 9/28/2005 9:19:00 AM >

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 84
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/17/2005 2:57:04 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewC

no, I suggested Erwin to make a bonfire of his books, if that's where he gets his bs information from... now quit spamming please


Andrew--we would love to have specifics in suggestions for changes to the Romanian OOB. As a matter of fact, there is a forum dedicated to the Romanians in WWII. Are you familiar with it? http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/

To settle one thing -- I have nothing against you personally, man, nor does anyone else. We are all students of the military, but you, sir, seem to have an axe to grind. Having been an OOB designer and moderator, I'm used to this kind of vitriol. However, it has no place in an attempted even-handed discussion of this game.





_____________________________


(in reply to AndrewC)
Post #: 85
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/17/2005 3:02:22 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		AndrewC, we're done here. You contribute nothing but infantile name-calling and worthless self-righteousness, and my time is too precious for that. You may have been around since 2.0, but you haven't learned anything about manners.

(gotta love the Block User list).



< Message edited by Terminus -- 9/17/2005 3:09:01 AM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 86
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/17/2005 3:11:52 AM   
AndrewC

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 9/5/2005
Status: offline 		nt

< Message edited by AndrewC -- 9/28/2005 9:19:13 AM >

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 87
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/17/2005 3:23:30 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewC

From the top of my head, I remember that the romanian inf platoon oob in SPWaW for 1941 was 4 squads of each 10 men. In reality, it was 3 sqauds of 17 men. Big difference. Also using the appropriate country flag would be a nice start. It pains me to see the flag used from 1965 to 1989. I posted this and other corrections many times before. No one took me seriously because somehow their sources are better than mine. Aww shoot! At the same time, someone comes out of nowhere and suggests they add an american recoilless gun that was never before in SPWaW. His wish was granted almost instantly!




That's better. Andrew, get familiar with the OOB Editor, and go to work on it. You can post your results at the SPWaW Depot, or send it to Alby. Matrix itself is offering no more official OOB updates.

Frankly, I'd like this attention to detail extended to EVERY minor nation in SPWaW.

_____________________________


(in reply to AndrewC)
Post #: 88
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/17/2005 3:38:51 AM   
AndrewC

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 9/5/2005
Status: offline 		nt

< Message edited by AndrewC -- 9/28/2005 9:19:27 AM >

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 89
RE: 3 years and nothing changed - 9/17/2005 3:48:33 AM   
Goblin


Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewC

From the top of my head, I remember that the romanian inf platoon oob in SPWaW for 1941 was 4 squads of each 10 men. In reality, it was 3 sqauds of 17 men. Big difference. Also using the appropriate country flag would be a nice start. It pains me to see the flag used from 1965 to 1989. I posted this and other corrections many times before. No one took me seriously because somehow their sources are better than mine. Aww shoot! At the same time, someone comes out of nowhere and suggests they add an american recoilless gun that was never before in SPWaW. His wish was granted almost instantly!




That's better. Andrew, get familiar with the OOB Editor, and go to work on it. You can post your results at the SPWaW Depot, or send it to Alby. Matrix itself is offering no more official OOB updates.

Frankly, I'd like this attention to detail extended to EVERY minor nation in SPWaW.


His tone better change significantly if he wants to visit there.

Andrew - you probably lost any chance at someone respecting anything you have to say now. You lost one potential ally here, as I am now out of it too. I'll join that 'chump' for a beer. At least he is polite, for a 'professional spammer'.




Goblin



_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> RE: 3 years and nothing changed Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.893