How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor?

How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns

Message

KG Erwin -> How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/8/2006 8:45:59 PM)
I get the impression that most gamers are content to use the vanilla OOBs, and choose not to fiddle with the database. There's a few notable exceptions to the rule, of course, including those guys who worked on the previous official OOBs and others who have since provided independent mods. So, how many of you guys have actually engaged in database tweaking?

Puukkoo -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/8/2006 9:16:18 PM)
I have Your OOB for the USMC, and I have tweaked Finnish Rifle/Ski/Jaeger Squad 44 to be available in July 1944 and not in September.

Mike Wood -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/8/2006 9:26:54 PM)
Hello... I use Alby's latest OOBs. I feel they are the cleanest around. I have modified them somewhat, mainly adding units and formations. Although I disagree with many of the weapons values, I have not changed any, as that would make an inconsistant set of values more so. I do always use the programmer's conventions. Bye... Michael Wood

Afrika Korps -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/8/2006 9:30:47 PM)
I use vanilla OOB, I don't modify or tweak anything.

KG Erwin -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/8/2006 9:43:42 PM)
As strictly a solo player, I've strived to make my personal OOBs as user-friendly for core-force upgrades in a long campaign as I could. This is why I've tweaked the USMC so much, while trying to maintain historical accuracy. Tweaking the OOBs for PBEM use is much trickier, as it forces the players into elaborate negotiations on which OOB set to use, which units should be restricted, the percentage of off-board support, etc etc. Granted, you get a much better challenge of your tactical expertise, but I have no desire to engage in such "pre-battle" contracts -- you're supposed to be fighting your opponent, not marrying them LOL. Once you guys get the 5.0 Editor, you really SHOULD consider using the batch options for every OOB in the 8.3 database. Taken in conjunction with the the new mech.exe, the game now represents the way it was intended to work, with the myriad of formulas and values all integrated into a combat system that is VERY solid and enjoyable.

Dragoon 45 -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/9/2006 7:19:19 AM)
I have two complete games installed on my machine. One is pure using the game provided OOB's for designing scenario's and testing other players' scenario's. The second version I have made quite a few changes in the US ARMY and USMC databases mainly based on experimental and little know weapons. I have also modified US Infantry squads to reflect additional equipment issued to them for special missions, i.e. assaulting fortifications etc. Also WP rounds were available to all US mortars and artillery pieces by mid 1944 and I include that in the OOB's. There are a lot of low production German equipment not included in the game that I will eventually include in my OOB's. My biggest grip with the game is that there are not enough slots in the OOB to really modify things especially in the US, German, and British OOB's. Building the units in another countries OOB is a work around but I wish they would expand the OOB slots in a future version.

soldier -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/9/2006 9:10:25 AM)
I played with the standard oobs for years but recently started tweaking things. I really liked how Albys mod removed elite status from armour and super units like cavalry and motorcycles. I applied some of these changes to a H2H install and it seems to work well. I also gave the some US infantry squads the bazooka but couldnt find the 1944 squad in the editor, it only has old ones so i had to add a squad. I change somethings that are not historical, still undecided about bazooka use against infantry

sabrejack -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/10/2006 12:38:46 AM)
I play almost exclusively PBEM, so I can't afford to play around with OOBs too much if I want to have any opponents! I currently have three installs (v8.3, H2Hfr and DepotMod2 over v8.3) which have proven to be the three most popular for PBEM lately. Because of this, we don't need to enter 'marriage contracts' [;)], we just specify which version we're using, and whether we choose to have any 'house rules' (e.g. no pre-laid mines, or no air strikes). It's a simple process, which works very well with both new opponents and older ones. I understand that the new version will have plenty of options for modifying units, right across an OOB, but I won't be using it much, except perhaps for my own curiosity (which would necessitate a fourth install, for personal OOBs). Having said all of that, I know it must have taken a lot of work to build these things, so SALUTE!

eburr155 -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/10/2006 1:30:24 AM)
Default OOBs. I don't know enough about batallion/regimental/brigade TOEs to even try to modify stuff. Plus I have no trouble just buying what I need. So far. I did get really grumpy about the lack of bazookas at the squad level while playing the "Long, Long Road ..." campaign and decided to play a long UK campaign instead.

Swamprat -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/10/2006 11:39:52 AM)
I can only concur with what Sabrejack has said. I really don't see any reason to meddle with what I don't understand. If I were a solo player then maybe I would, purely as a way to extend my interest in the game, but I get all the variety I want in PBEM. One thing I really don't understand;Erwin, you said "game now represents the way it was intended to work". What does this mean??? Have I been playing all these years on something that wasn't working the way it was intended? [&:]

KG Erwin -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/10/2006 2:50:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Swamprat One thing I really don't understand;Erwin, you said "game now represents the way it was intended to work". What does this mean??? Have I been playing all these years on something that wasn't working the way it was intended? [&:] I should've said, "the game now works the way it was originally intended". Some of the OOB values have changed considerably over the years, and if it plays fine for you, then no problem. However, I personally think it's much better after adopting the "programmer's conventions".

Swamprat -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/10/2006 4:27:07 PM)
But that's just it. I understood your original meaning from reading your other posts. How was the game originally intended to work? Haven't the upgrades been improvements? Or is there something about the upgrades that didn't fit in with the original game engine or the way the game engine worked? Or am I reading too much into this? Is it that the programmer's conventions just go back to the original OOB's before they all got changed? So now a squad has this and that, just like the original, rather than the whistles and bells that got added during the upgrades? Is that what you mean?

FlashfyreSP -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/10/2006 8:47:03 PM)
I think the point is, Swamprat, that the OOBs have evolved over time with changes that were made to "fix" perceived problems, rather than addressing the game code itself. The FC/RgF/Stab ratings are prime examples of this; early versions of the game gave low ratings to these for WWII-era vehicles, although the basic code was from a modern-era game. Giving Tiger tanks FC ratings of 8 or 9 to address the "problem" of them not performing the way players thought they should wasn't the right approach; now the Tiger operates like a modern Abrams or Leopard MBT. This "revision" sets these ratings back to their earlier settings, the ones that the game code was designed for. As Mike said once, if the game code only expects a rating of 1-5 for that field, putting in a 9 isn't going to work correctly. Personally, from what I've seen playing with 'modified' OOBs that have all been run through the new editor, game combat is more enjoyable...the instances of 'first-shot, first-hit, first-kill' for many tanks is reduced, allowing enemy units to survive a bit longer, and giving you the ability to use field tactics to overcome your oppoenent, instead of relying on the arcade-style 'shoot-as-fast-as-you-can' method. It is now possible to swarm a German Tiger with a platoon of Shermans and actually score hits on the big Kat, instead of watching your 'Ronsons' brew up one at a time as you try to manuever them around the flanks, because that Kat isn't as laser-accurate as it once was. It is still potent, but not on the order of a modern-era computer-guided MBT.

Swamprat -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/10/2006 10:56:34 PM)
Thanks, it all makes sense now, and it does sound like it makes the game more versatile. Won't restrict the workable exp range to between 50 and 70 now for instance. Can have an 80exp army that doesn't resemble a battalion of terminators for instance. Will have to get round to downloading and playing with this new/old addition. [:D] If a debate elsewhere is anything to go by however, the 'Kat' lovers aren't going to like this. Some players will then complain that Tigers aren't performing how they should, and will want upgrades to address this and.... oops, we'll be back to where we started. I suppose it's a good job that there are variants of SPWAW out there to suit every taste. [;)] I wish there were some definitive statistics and 'eyewitness' accounts that would seperate the myth from the truth about tank and troop performance, rather than just people's subjective angst. It sure does make it tough to create 'true to life' game. That said, I haven't seen any better out there.

KG Erwin -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/10/2006 11:19:17 PM)
I agree with you, Swamprat. Thanks --you've hit the proverbial nail on the head. [;)]

Alby -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/11/2006 12:19:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Wood Hello... I use Alby's latest OOBs. I feel they are the cleanest around. I have modified them somewhat, mainly adding units and formations. Although I disagree with many of the weapons values, I have not changed any, as that would make an inconsistant set of values more so. I do always use the programmer's conventions. Bye... Michael Wood The next release, coming any day now, will have all programmers conventions applied [:)]

chief -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/11/2006 7:25:25 AM)
All rightee....someone please explain "Programmers convention" term. Thanks in advance.

Alby -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/11/2006 5:57:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chief All rightee....someone please explain "Programmers convention" term. Thanks in advance. Basically, and Mike correct me if I am wrong but it puts the game specs such as unit size, fire control, rangefinders, and some other things back to what the game code calls for. I know I did not explain this very well. [:(]

Mike Wood -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/11/2006 6:37:21 PM)
Hello... Ya. Stuff like that. Bye... Michael Wood quote: ORIGINAL: Alby quote: ORIGINAL: chief All rightee....someone please explain "Programmers convention" term. Thanks in advance. Basically, and Mike correct me if I am wrong but it puts the game specs such as unit size[for non-vehicles], fire control, rangefinders, and some other things back to what the game code calls for. I know I did not explain this very well. [:(]

Afrika Korps -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/11/2006 8:30:30 PM)
This is why I stick with vanilla OOB, since this just confuses me more. [:'(]

Alby -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/11/2006 10:49:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Afrika Korps This is why I stick with vanilla OOB, since this just confuses me more. [:'(] Flashfyre explained it pretty good so I will quote him I think the point is, that the OOBs have evolved over time with changes that were made to "fix" perceived problems, rather than addressing the game code itself. The FC/RgF/Stab ratings are prime examples of this; early versions of the game gave low ratings to these for WWII-era vehicles, although the basic code was from a modern-era game. Giving Tiger tanks FC ratings of 8 or 9 to address the "problem" of them not performing the way players thought they should wasn't the right approach; now the Tiger operates like a modern Abrams or Leopard MBT. This "revision" sets these ratings back to their earlier settings, the ones that the game code was designed for. As Mike said once, if the game code only expects a rating of 1-5 for that field, putting in a 9 isn't going to work correctly. Personally, from what I've seen playing with 'modified' OOBs that have all been run through the new editor, game combat is more enjoyable...the instances of 'first-shot, first-hit, first-kill' for many tanks is reduced, allowing enemy units to survive a bit longer, and giving you the ability to use field tactics to overcome your oppoenent, instead of relying on the arcade-style 'shoot-as-fast-as-you-can' method. It is now possible to swarm a German Tiger with a platoon of Shermans and actually score hits on the big Kat, instead of watching your 'Ronsons' brew up one at a time as you try to manuever them around the flanks, because that Kat isn't as laser-accurate as it once was. It is still potent, but not on the order of a modern-era computer-guided MBT.

chief -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/11/2006 10:58:09 PM)
OK, thanks to all for the info, BUT how does one get into that condition using the editor ? Or am i just dense ? Don't answer that.....I tried opening the .doc that came with the ver 5.0 editor but it won't open on my machine(s).

Afrika Korps -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/11/2006 11:07:15 PM)
hmmm...well, I use the 8.4 version of SPWAW, new install, with the OOBs that came with it. So, I take it to be more accurate, I should use a different set then? I like realism.

Zap -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/11/2006 11:17:45 PM)
I have not messed with the OOB's. I don't have the knowledge to make the battle more historically accurate. The most recent update has made the game run so much smoother(in my opinion.) If there is some authorative source out that could make weapons,squads,supply ect. even more historically correct. It would be better that those be applied to a new game where the code could allow for those more historically correct numbers. SP:WAW is working so much better now. I can still enjoy this game even if it may have some historic inacuracies.

Alby -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/12/2006 12:34:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chief OK, thanks to all for the info, BUT how does one get into that condition using the editor ? Or am i just dense ? Don't answer that.....I tried opening the .doc that came with the ver 5.0 editor but it won't open on my machine(s). open the new editor and open any OOB and you will see a new tab appear at the top called Batch options Go thru these one at a time for evry OOB...or wait for my soon to be relased OOB update for the Depot Multi Mod 2, also includes new graphics from Tracer. [:D]

KG Erwin -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/12/2006 12:38:37 AM)
There are at least three OOB sets to choose from -- the official 8.3, the H2H mod (which was based on 7.1), and the Alby (Depot) mod (based on 8.3). The Depot mod is the most recent, and the latest version will incorporate all of the programmer conventions. This particular mod had contributions from many people, including yours truly [;)] and to my mind, is the current "state of the art" in OOB Design. (Note: I received no compensation for this endorsement [:D] )

Alby -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/12/2006 12:49:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KG Erwin There are at least three OOB sets to choose from -- the official 8.3, the H2H mod (which was based on 7.1), and the Alby (Depot) mod (based on 8.3). The Depot mod is the most recent, and the latest version will incorporate all of the programmer conventions. This particular mod had contributions from many people, including yours truly [;)] and to my mind, is the current "state of the art" in OOB Design. (Note: I received no compensation for this endorsement [:D] ) State of the Art?? dont know about that but, some very good people did contribute [:)]

VikingNo2 -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/12/2006 12:56:45 AM)
Are the base exp and moral values the same as in 8.4 ?

KG Erwin -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/12/2006 1:04:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alby State of the Art?? dont know about that but, some very good people did contribute [:)] Well, I WAS just referring to the part I contributed. [:'(]

KG Erwin -> RE: How Many Actually Use the OOB Editor? (1/12/2006 1:06:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VikingNo2 Are the base exp and moral values the same as in 8.4 ? Yes, with the exception that the Bulgarian values were displayed incorrectly --that's been fixed.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.609375