Something New in SPWAW (Full Version)

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



Message

Wild Bill -> Something New in SPWAW (7/14/2000 11:11:00 PM)

Here is some reading straight from the hand of our own Michael Wood, lead programmer at Matrix Games. What I am giving you is a peek at a few more very neat and new features that will be included in version 3.0 of SPWAW. And it simply means more uncertainty of war..but I look forward to it. Thanks Michael! ================ On the issue of weapon breakdowns, the following rules apply: 1) Prime infantry breakdowns are of weapons in slot 1, that is rifles and sub-machine pistols. These can occur, but the user will not know about it. It will be added to the routine that we already have which determine how many of the men in the squad fire. Right now, this is determined by a couple experience and morale checks and is based on the range to the target and how much fire the unit is taking. 2) Light, medium and heavy machine guns in a squad or team can breakdown. They may stay broken for a couple turns, but will usually be back in operation on the next turn. 3) Vehicle guns, howitzers, anti-tank guns and the like may break down. The larger the gun is, the longer it will probably take to fix. Some may not be fixed at all, during the battle, depending on the nature of the malfunction. 4) Firing the weapon the maximum number of times every turn and then during opportunity fire, exceeding 1/2 the normal allotment of shots per turn will make breakdowns occur much more frequently. 5) Soviet weapons will tend to have the highest breakdown values. Surprisingly, Italian weapons will fare well and will tend to have among the lowest. On the issue of vehicle breakdowns., the following applies: 1) The faster and longer a vehicle travels over the worse terrain, the greater chance for a vehicle breakdown. This will cause the unit to become immobile. 2) Traveling over about 2/3 the maximum speed, depending on nation, of the unit will instigate a breakdown check. 3) Traveling over rough terrain or through trees and the like will instigate a breakdown check. 4) The exact breakdown chance and speed for each unit will vary and will be unique to that vehicle. 5) Vehicles of differing nations will have different breakdown values. The USA will generally have the lowest values as the Sherman and Stuart were very robust and dependable. The Soviets will also fare very well, with the T-34 series. The late war Germans, with poor maintenance, will not fare so well and certain vehicles, like the early model Panther will suffer. Early war British designs will not always breakdown. Unless the player has a very bad run of luck, weapon and vehicle breakdowns will not be common. The rule is designed to make the players a little more cautious and not be disable their entire force. There will be buttons in the preferences that allow breakdown rules to be turned off. ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games



Drake666 -> (7/14/2000 11:38:00 PM)

Very cool WB. Something I have always wanted to see in a game like this.



WW2'er -> (7/15/2000 12:11:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Wild Bill: Unless the player has a very bad run of luck, weapon and vehicle breakdowns will not be common. The rule is designed to make the players a little more cautious and not be disable their entire force. There will be buttons in the preferences that allow breakdown rules to be turned off.
WB, I'm VERY glad to see this last paragraph in your message. I was reading through the post thinking, "Great! Half my troops will be come sitting ducks because their rifles or tanks will break down when needed the most." I'll be honest and say that I Love the idea, but I'm nervous about its implementation. I know it's true to life, but if I lost a scenario because of equipment failure, when I had better equipment and tactics.....I'd be frustrated. Nice to know I will be able to toggle it off though! Once again, thanks for the information and Mike Wood is quickly rising to the level of "Hero" in my book. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] WW2'er



Charles22 -> (7/15/2000 12:33:00 AM)

On the surface, I believe I like it, as at least it's an attempt at more realism, however, some concerns here. Well, y'all seen enough AOE mentality to know this will be a drawbck for those types who are interested in this game, and it will appear to be a bug. Would it be wise to have some small description line describing what's wrong? Also, is there such a thing as assigning the crew to fix what's wrong, or does it happen automatically? The flaw I see with trying to retain realism, and allowing automatic fixing, is that how does a crew fix something if they're moving? Clearly, with such an approach, there should be the option of moving, repairing, or firing (what's still working) but with little or none, of a combination thereof. Also it would be nice if something was relayed back to the user to make it clear when something was permanently damaged, BUT that the crew could in some cases not determine the extent of the damage until they tried to repair it. One concern I have, as well, is how will the AI be used? If the AI charges banzai style and shoots every opportunity it gets, then surely breakdown inclusion might be a bad thing. This breakdown thing, also adds another dimension to the new op fire phase. It would seem to me, that the user would require something to tell him how much the unit that's being called for op fire, had fired before, so that the optimum could be maintained and still stay away from breakdowns. Perhaps, since we don't really have a use for HQ depots at this point, perhaps it could function as a repair station in case the malfunction can be fixed, but not by that crew (of course the crew might be able to tell it was completely unable to be repaired as well). Here's a really wild idea, but surely it's been thought of before. Since we have a more sophisticated op fire with v.3.0, then why not "op movement"? Perhaps if you had any left over movement points, you could then use half of those points to move in op. I'm not sure I like it, but it's an idea. This would eliminate the certainty that someone will always be just as far or close to our unit as they are during the player phase (though some small percentage of units move anyway, apparently). I know it would probably require ridiculous amount of programming, but it sure would make a battle chaotic!



Wild Bill -> (7/15/2000 12:50:00 AM)

That is it. If you don't like it, turn it down or turn it off. I do that all the time [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] I like the CD music but not when I'm fighting. I turn on my own. So I turn it off. I see a battle where C&C won't work, I turn it off. THE NICE THING is that you have a choice. Use it or don't use it. That is up to you. But it is very nice to have that choice, isn't it? You didn't even have that before. WB ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games



Charles22 -> (7/15/2000 1:01:00 AM)

If you don't want any ideas, just say so.



Tombstone -> (7/15/2000 1:03:00 AM)

Moving guys in sp games does not model guys constantly moving throughout the turn. SPWAW is still large enough scale that things should be abstracted. Tomo



Paul Vebber -> (7/15/2000 1:55:00 AM)

Charles, Bill is hardly telling you to "shut up". We give the gaming community an unprecedented level of visibility into our thinking and development process and when we have to say no to something, or don't give someone's idea a rousing endorsement they tend to get bent out of shape. That is a normal emotional response. We have enjoyed an amazing level civility, exchange of ideas and maturity on this forum. Please understand that we can't please everybody with the details of every feature. Bills point is at least we give you an "out" that if a feature we add really offends your sensibilities you can turn it off. That is not to muzzle your input, but the simple fact that we can't please everybody with every feature. Not taking offense to that keeps everybody's blood preasure down. [This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited 07-14-2000).]



WW2'er -> (7/15/2000 2:12:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: We give the gaming community an unprecedented level of visibility into our thinking and development process...
And it is VERY MUCHappreciated! Thanks, Paul, WB, and all of Matrix! [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] WW2'er



Wild Bill -> (7/15/2000 2:36:00 AM)

Even though Paul has responded Charles, I can't help but ask, what made you think I did not want your input? I read my post very carefully but I can't see anything there that would be offensive. You stated what you wanted. I stated what was there. Now if my doing that offends you, I apologize for it appearing offensive to you. It is not my nature to do that. I have posted on many occasions (in fact, just today) about how good and needed your input is. Look at my post under the topic Uncertainty of War, time 1:13 PM today. No here is what I said. ----------------------- "It would be nice, Steve, a scale for artillery certainty, much as ammo limits, etc. I suppose it would be a good thing to add. "But either way, yes or no, it does not hurt to ask. We have gleaned some pretty good ideas from your questions and comments. We may not get them all this time around, but you can believe that all of this is a help to us. "I guess you could say, 'Ask for everything, take what you can get.' " --------------------------- So if I offended you with my answer here, you have my apology. No slam was intended. Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games



JJU57 -> (7/15/2000 3:50:00 AM)

I do have the same question as Charles concerning the AI and how these new rules will impact it. Will there be logic to never exceed the breakdown check, or do they always max fire, or do you have a logic loop that check other factors but deciding to max fire or use that OP fire?



Major_Johnson -> (7/15/2000 3:54:00 AM)

This sounds like a variation of a feature I miss from SP1. I used to fire an enemy unit to increase it's suppression and then while that unit was unable to fire due to it's supression number would rush it with another unit and finish it off! That was one of my favorite tactics! It's just that now I won't really know if an enemy unit is hurting or not until I take that gamble. Sounds like that ol "Fog of War" saying coming into play!



victorhauser -> (7/15/2000 4:08:00 AM)

I think Mike Wood must be a masochist, or else the rest of you Matrix guys must be sadists to work Mike so hard! [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] But wow! This new breakdown feature seems to be an awfully ambitious undertaking. Please make sure that Mike gets his rest between subsequent patches and debugging! [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] P.S. I think it's a very smart decision to make this new breakdown feature an optional feature.



Charles22 -> (7/15/2000 4:26:00 AM)

Yes, Bill, I did consider your comments rather ironic to me on that basis (but I read that post after I had read the one you made, here). With the exception of my comment on the ramifications on the AI of the breakdown rules, I made no definite statements on my "wanting" what I was suggesting, and even the AI mention was only a red flag going up. Is it just me, or is it possible to make suggestions without my necessarily knowing whether I like them? I like to imagine reality (how's that for something of a contradiction? - hey that's a phrase for your phrase thread), and in so doing I speak in the present mode and in the future at the same time (sorry I'm sounding really weird here), for I can see that on the surface my idea sounds appealing, but at the same time, I've seen a number of things that at first looked appealing, which turned out as so many disasters, so while with some people stating an idea may mean that's what they want, it doesn't always work that way with C22. I don't mean to be troublesome, I just tend to think differently at times. So, it appears as though y'all think I'm just buttressed up with what I'm suggesting has to be that way or the world is going to explode and it's pretty far from the truth. For the most part, I'm pretty much trying to show what may not have been considered, for surely, as y'all must know, every new idea and innovation creates a whole new host of complications. I think you were edgey with me, because sooner or later the ideas have to stop and the game has to be final, and as you may know from a somewhat frustrated post I made days ago, I understand that reasoning and it's frustrating for me as a campaigner to be dealing with new versions. As well, it might be a good thing to realize that a good deal of us have no dealings with the game industry other than buying games, so that we have no idea when ideas for new innovations to enhance reality are welcome and when they are not. Why Steve's comments were welcome and mine were not, I'm not really sure. In any case while I said if you didn't want *any* ideas, what I meant was *my* ideas. I hadn't seen anyone's ideas squelched lately, so this puzzled me even more. Who's to say, as certainly I cannot know, whether some idea will come along from me, or anyone else for that matter, that will suddenly ring out a "Stop the presses" sort of reaction? As well, y'all have a lot of undefined games remaining as far as I can see, it wouldn't be entirely out of the realm of possibility that an idea formented here, could completely change something signifigant elsewhere. I'm perfectly at ease with having my ideas rejected, all I expect, is that, perhaps, my little contribution may spur on a yet brighter idea elsewhere, and let's face it, even if my idea is way too late, it may spur something up later. I've had way too many incidents in my life, where someone might say the slightest word, and it can get me to thinking in very profound ways (for me anyway), for me not to think that even if an idea is misapplied, it may get another one off the ground by someone completely different. I'm sorry if my ideas are too analytical, too prideful, or too ill-timed, or whatever my problem is. As far as why I thought you had a harsh attitude towards me, the first three words did it. It may be, "it", but I certainly never heard that before, seems every version ends up having patches. If the AI would start breaking down horrendously, I don't think y'all would want that to be the final version. As far as the next sentence went, a lot of people use those same words with hostility, The winking smiley, as stupid as it may sound, looked like a way to get the satisfaction out of launching on me, while using the smiley to sort of ease the edge off of it. As hearing somebody say, "I imagine reality...." may be difficult to deal with, such is a flaming while the other person is smiling. Though it may not have been your intent, it reminds me of the stupid habit people have these days of saying things like (and doesn't this sound military?), "With all due respect sir...." and then go through the most disrespectful approach to whom they speak, as though the disrespect should be ignored when it follows that phrase. Paul: Are you generalizing me? I've made numerous suggestions to this board and as far as I can recall not a single one of them have been taken up. Does it bother me? I hope not. Perhaps y'all are annoyed that I continue to make suggestions which are much lamer than everyone else's and I just haven't taken the hint. Believe me, I don't feel the need for any of my suggestions being taken up, if you can believe what I said to Bill, I'm just making contributions, do with them as you will. I'm not offended that my ideas aren't taken up, I'm entirely used to that sort of thing, I'm only a bit shocked that somehow my ideas aren't welcomed in that one instance. If my post was the beginning of no more ideas for v.3.0 (but then I'm not necessarily directing all my comments toward to that end anyway), fine, it's just that I wasn't expecting it quite so abruptly and more in line with a general announcement.



Tombstone -> (7/15/2000 4:42:00 AM)

There should be some kind of option to have only 2/3's of your movement visible when you select guys. (like save movement points in East Front) That way I can make a general habit of moving at 2/3's and go for broke when it's really necessary. Otherwise I feel that I may get involved in too much counting of movement points to maintain a level of safety in my units' breakdown possibilities. I don't want to turn off this feature either. I think it sounds great. I just want it to not be too annoying to use. This is a really good idea, it throws something into the mix to balance off the potential infinite return fire that high experience units can manifest. Tomo



Drake666 -> (7/15/2000 4:53:00 AM)

Will guys for my two cents worth and you might not like this to charles is that hold of on your ideas and seggestions for after you see it in action. If it need inprovements then you can start complaining about and makeing seggestions on what should be changed.



Paul Vebber -> (7/15/2000 4:54:00 AM)

Yes I was speaking in the general about your response. It was not intened to be any sort of personal attack. You obviously feel hurt becasue you perceive that you have no impact and your ideas are singled out as "bad ones". That is a big reason most companies work in isolation and have little interaction with the community of customers. Once you open the Pandora's box or a carrying on a dialogue, you run the risk of alienating some segment that feels you haven't listened to them. That small group decides that the company is a bunch or jerks and tells that to everyone. Most companies see the downside of that as worse than the advantages of the input the community provides. We've been to that fire several times and have decided that a strategy of engagement, despite the near certainty of having what has happened to you happen, is a good thing. We have not targeted you to be black-balled. With several hundred participants and thousands of posts, its impossible to keep track of who said what. We evaluate the ideas presented here on their merits as I described elsewhere, based on game value, difficulty to implement and potential to "break more than they add". From a quick review of some of your ideas, many are VERY good, but tend to get at a level of detail that we can't or don't want to implement in SP:WaW. That is not anybody's fault, just happens to be how the chips have fallen. Email and forum posts can be a terrible form of communication. We tend to write what we speak, and about 80% of teh information content of a face to face exchange is lost when its provided as a simple written transcript of teh words with no inlfection, body language or eye contact. Everyone can understand the frustration of feeling you are being brushed aside, but rest assured we value your input or we would not talk the time to write these responses. Keep posting! We really do appreciate it even if we happen to have failed to synch up yet!



Paul Vebber -> (7/15/2000 5:06:00 AM)

The point of the rule is not to have players counting movement points or shots to "keep the bad things from happening". Don't look for much help in "out gaming" these mods, the idea is that in general go slow and fire deliberately and it will not affect you as much as if you tear around firing every shot you have. GAmers tend to get caught up in "maximizing effeciency" we are deliberately working to make that hard and force you to think tactically, not in terms of "out gaming the game"



Wild Bill -> (7/15/2000 5:15:00 AM)

This is for Charles, but it should be posted here. When I said "That is it." What I meant was, "That is it" like agreeing with you. Kinda like when a person is fishing for an idea, and suddenly you say, "That is it!" That was the meaning of that phrase. "That is it" simply meant in my letter, "yes, you have a point, an important point," NOT "that is it" or "No more please." I am sorry that you misread my meaning. I'm also sorry that you apparently did not accept my apology from your post which followed mine. Apologize is all I can do. If that is not sufficient for you, I don't know what else to say or do. With that, I'll drop this topic and refer to it no more. One apology and one explantion should be enough. ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games



Greg McCarty -> (7/15/2000 5:38:00 AM)

This last point is key. When winning the game gets reduced to a calculated mathematical formula, it will become routine and dull. Over the years, I've seen some seek this level of proficiency in otherwise good games. At some point historical relevance is brushed aside, and the whole endeavor becomes something of a mechanical excercise. So I like this concept, because it will force a degree of self discipline which, if ignored will have consequence --and it adds an element of unpredictabilty. Everybody in this hobby wants realism. This is the stuff that it is made of! I like it! My gut feelings tell me we might want to add a few more turns to computer generated games, scenarios, and campaign battles as a compensating adjustment. Some of those objective hexes seem parsecs away as it is. g
quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: The point of the rule is not to have players counting movement points or shots to "keep the bad things from happening". Don't look for much help in "out gaming" these mods, the idea is that in general go slow and fire deliberately and it will not affect you as much as if you tear around firing every shot you have. GAmers tend to get caught up in "maximizing effeciency" we are deliberately working to make that hard and force you to think tactically, not in terms of "out gaming the game"



Don -> (7/15/2000 5:41:00 AM)

"Well, y'all seen enough AOE mentality to know this will be a drawbck for those types who are interested in this game, and it will appear to be a bug. " What is "AOE mentality"? I love AOE and don't see any drawbacks about this feature. If it is too much or too little it can be adjusted by Matrix or turned off by you. Don



Jon Grasham -> (7/15/2000 7:38:00 AM)

I believe the "AOE mentality" spoken of is the RTS fantatics used to no variables such as this, no "bad" things happen outside of combat. No men panic, no vehicles break, only way losses are taken is from enemy fire. However, since this will be a choice by the player, I think the point is nill. If they read about it, don't want it, it won't be on. For the rest of us... the mechanics are gonna be doin more than replacing optical equipment! :-) (Will a serious weapon failure acrue "damage" that can be repaired in the refitting parts of campaigns? Or will it automatically be repaired between battles?)



Charles22 -> (7/15/2000 8:01:00 AM)

Don: AOE mentality, as I define it, is characterised by wanting to play the game of "Paper, Stone, Scissors" on a slightly more sophisticated form. It's also characteristic of wanting to play real time. I too have played both versions of AOE, and I'm sick and tired of this pace to gaming, basically sending turn-based companies out of business; a pace characteristic (turn-based) of wargaming. I've played AOE enough and frankly it's boring to me. I have no intention on buying to upcoming additions they plan. I definitely plan to keep what I have, just to see little men run around every once in a while, but that's about it. I see RTS as a threat to any attempt at historical wargaming. Paul: I'm quite difficult to understand, aren't I? As I said before I don't feel hurt, or at least hope I don't, by being ignored, I really don't. I'm merely making an attempt to figure out what was going on, as to why Bill suddenly seemed to launch. It's just as my ideas are, I don't expect a gold medal for them, nor do I necessarily even support them if my support mattered. They're only ideas. As Bill says my ideas can be somewhat complex (paraphrasing) so that only adds to my realization that they may be nigh impossible to implement, but hey, what do I know, I'm no programmer? Might as well give it a shot. Bill: I've figured out what's happened here. Your last response almost really set me off. I reread your first two sentences. The second sentence sounds like you're browbeating me and my punishment is to quit my whining or whatever wrongdoing you thought I was performing, by saying "That is it." (no more) What really happened is you forgot a very important element to your message, you didn't address to whom you spoke. Your post falling after mine, makes it looks as though you're replying to me, when that isn't so. You were actually replying to WW2'er and now that I read his message (perhaps his fell in as I was typing mine) it fits perfectly into your first comments without any apparent intent to injure WW2'er. Sorry about that. If you apply your comments to my post, you might be able to understand how your comments seemed more antagonistic, particularly considering how I never referred to the option to turning anything off. It was almost the equivalent of saying, "If you don't like something, turn it off or shut up," I'm glad to see you weren't so mean. I'm actually a little surprised that you didn't realize that your post wasn't meant for me, but then after I responded you must have figured that you had, when you had not. Sorry again.



Tombstone -> (7/15/2000 8:27:00 AM)

I don't want to game the system. But I would like to have some sort of guideline for relatively safe behavior. We should have the choice to go into the danger zone of behaviors. Not that I expect no breakdowns if I follow the guidelines, just that I will have fewer. That way I can choose to do risky behavior when I feel it necessary. If, for the most part, 2/3 or more of your movement increases your chances of a breakdown then I would like some rough indication of what 2/3's movement is. Firing all your shots or not, is easy. That fixes itself. The player has a lot of room to judge how much fire he's going to expend. But movement is different, hexes cost more or less to go through and it can get overwhelming if for some reason you wanted to move a large force at a slower pace. Knowing how far a unit can move is not intuitive. The shaded hexes, for me, are my primary visual feedback for most of my decisions for movement. If the game provides for a 2/3's movement feedback to the player then the change in the game engine would be more clearly reflected in the way we would play. Tomo



Six-pk -> (7/15/2000 9:22:00 AM)

'vehicle breakdowns'... I've wanted this allways, used to play Squad Leader. But 'weapon breakdowns', TO COOL! Super job Mike, Paul, Wild Bill, and the rest of MATRIX!! [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] Was wondering if the Pause abillity that will be for internet play will work in play VS AI and PBEM. I hope so! I like to have messages at 1.66 seconds but sometimes I miss some. Longer than 1.66 is to long for me, slows down the over-all game speed. Anyways Thx! Six [This message has been edited by Six-pk (edited July 14, 2000).]



Wild Bill -> (7/15/2000 10:56:00 AM)

Peace, Charles. We'll save our fighting for the game. I'm glad this has cleared up for both of us. I said I would not post again, but I did want you to know I read your message. Thanks for writing. No bad feelings here. Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games



Jon Grasham -> (7/15/2000 10:57:00 AM)

As I understand it, the pause will be a live play only feature. It merely pauses the timer for the player initiating it (you can set a time limit for the turns), so would do nothing in single/PBEM games, as there are no turn time limits to pause.



Mike Wood -> (7/15/2000 11:40:00 AM)

Hello... I am sorry, but I cannot give you a realistic guideline.
quote:

Originally posted by Tombstone: I don't want to game the system. But I would like to have some sort of guideline for relatively safe behavior. We should have the choice to go into the danger zone of behaviors. Not that I expect no breakdowns if I follow the guidelines, just that I will have fewer. That way I can choose to do risky behavior when I feel it necessary. If, for the most part, 2/3 or more of your movement increases your chances of a breakdown then I would like some rough indication of what 2/3's movement is. Firing all your shots or not, is easy. That fixes itself. The player has a lot of room to judge how much fire he's going to expend. But movement is different, hexes cost more or less to go through and it can get overwhelming if for some reason you wanted to move a large force at a slower pace. Knowing how far a unit can move is not intuitive. The shaded hexes, for me, are my primary visual feedback for most of my decisions for movement. If the game provides for a 2/3's movement feedback to the player then the change in the game engine would be more clearly reflected in the way we would play. Tomo
The reason is, that like many things in this game, there is not a single variable involved, like 2/3 speed. People frequently post "bugs" that are not actually bugs, but something they did not expect. In the case of breakdowns, crew experience, officer abilities, the unit size and weapon size, unit and weapon types, warhead size, crew size, nationality and year and many other factors determine if the break down occur. You can probably drive around at maximum speed, firing maximum rounds in a Panther, mark A for quite some time before a break down occurs. But, if you continue long enough, it will occur. I will notify the user of the breakdown, however. Generally, breakdowns will occur when at the worst possible time. Japanese battalions will be charging out of the trees in a night assault, with a two visibility. You will desperately need to fire your .30 caliber machine guns till the barrel melts, so you will be firing like crazy - and the barrel will melt. Breakdowns will not be common, when you are creeping along and holding your fire. See Ya... Michael Wood



crazyivan -> (7/15/2000 11:54:00 AM)

thanks a million for your efforts guys,and wild bill you da man!!!! the new unforseen and often reacuring events of breakdowns which will be added to this game are bar none the realisim and the game just gets better and better (pity i can,t say the same about my spelling)top marks to all the team. one point though is it atall possible to have a recovery vech tow or load on any afv to take it to a safe place to repiar and if so maybe the repiar time or chance will be better if the siad vech is in the same hex as the repiar crew.ie same as loading ammo from a truck or on a ammo dump. once agian thank you all for your prompt responses i still can,t believe this game is free the mighty KIWI salutes you all.



Drake666 -> (7/15/2000 1:30:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by crazyivan: thanks a million for your efforts guys,and wild bill you da man!!!! the new unforseen and often reacuring events of breakdowns which will be added to this game are bar none the realisim and the game just gets better and better (pity i can,t say the same about my spelling)top marks to all the team. one point though is it atall possible to have a recovery vech tow or load on any afv to take it to a safe place to repiar and if so maybe the repiar time or chance will be better if the siad vech is in the same hex as the repiar crew.ie same as loading ammo from a truck or on a ammo dump. once agian thank you all for your prompt responses i still can,t believe this game is free the mighty KIWI salutes you all.
Will after looking at your post an idea came to me about looding immobilized or out of action tanks into the SdKfz-7 prime mover. It worked OK even with the King Tiger but when you unload it the strange thing happens. The tank will have a crew of 18. Wild or what [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.421875