(Full Version)

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

Message

crazyivan -> (7/15/2000 2:46:00 PM)
hey guys i love the elite member thing thats cool

Wild Bill -> (7/15/2000 2:48:00 PM)
[img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] You deserve it, Crazy Ivan! ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

Greg McCarty -> (7/15/2000 10:14:00 PM)
I don't know if this has been addressed, but I assume that the breakdown feature slices both ways. How will the AI handle this feature? Without revealing too much, will the AI have enough judgement to not debilitate itself? (or just act impulsive like the rest of us!) Or at least use some measure of prudence itself. I imagine the algorithm which the AI uses to judge fire and movement would require its own guidline.

amatteucci -> (7/15/2000 10:55:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by Wild Bill: Here is some reading straight from the hand of our own Michael Wood, lead programmer at Matrix Games. [snip] 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. [snip] May I beg to differ? Of course what I'm saying is not to be considered 'holy writ' but the fact that virtually all Italian LMGs and MMGs used in WW2 had a cartridge lubricating mechanism that was really a 'magnet' for dirt and dust (and sand in the desert) caused many realiability problems. Not to speak of the funny and strange ammo feeding systems (you won't find nor belt nor a removable magazine). May be Italian weapons were not that bad, but I strongly feel that Soviet weapons were much more realiable. Consider that Italian Cavalry troops often used captured Cossak sabres since the standard M1817 pattern was made of a steel not much suitable to freezing temperatures. Regards, Amedeo

Nikademus -> (7/15/2000 11:29:00 PM)
the latest additions to ver 3.0 would seem to be to attempt to make the game as 'realistic' as possible and actually reduce the 'gaming' effect. some classic examples of 'gaming' SP the ol make the AI shoot off all its OP fire, then have a tank "rush" in, fire point blank then dash off. Doable (in older versions) certainly. realistic? No. another classic: manipulate the OP fire rules to entice an AI tank into turning its gun and firing (even if the solution is poor) exposing thinner side armor to hits (btw i LOVE the controlled OP option for TCP.!!) a more subtle 'gaming'; always traversing around to the max of a units MP points. Legal and plausible certainly, realistic? not often. certainly not almost all the time. Even Sherman engines would have a hard time with that. Same thing for always firing all shots each turn. its legal no question, but not always realistic. Have to admit i'm a little wary of this new feature as i'm afraid of potential bugs and such (similar to my concern over what looked like frequent 'hits' when seeing firing solutions of less than 5%) I give credit to the Matrix gang though for making this new feature 'optional' that way if one does'nt like it they can leave it. nice. there will always be ways to 'game' any wargame. Its as inevitable as hacking. Some companies attempt to counter this by being very tight with their info on how the game works. I much prefer the open door policy Matrix has here, keeping us in the loop and querrying suggestions from us, the users of the program. Not all the suggestions may be acted on but then again there are only so many hours in the day and not everyone agrees on most issues. But give credit for the attempt! I only wish SSI had been as open and honest about the disasterous Fighting Steel wargame i had anticipated for so long only to not only be terribly let down but to actually get a hostile reaction from the company when i and others voiced complaints about bugs and suggestions to improve the game. There, they simply discontinued support for the game. Here? we've gotten 3 patches in only about a month or so. I find that level of dedication and support phenominal going back to issues on gaming. Its an issue that the gamers themselves must take equal responsibilty for too. Designers can only do so much (without damaging the product in the prcoess) Those interested in truely exploring the myrid of "what if" type situations that SP allows us to explore us will police themselves and not use such outragiously ahistorical situations like using snipers as suicide squads or trucks as ammo absorbers. open dialog between players before starting can set additional chks on ahistorical situations. This is why i dont bother much with 'ladder' type organizations. There the emphasis is on winning, by any means necessary. nothing wrong with that but for me, the goal is to participate in what i could in years past only 'read' about....commanding armored battlegroups in realistic conditions against opponents who act similarily. Bravo Matrix for continuously working to make SP the most intensive, fun and realistic game of tactical armored combat on the planet. :-)

Wild Bill -> (7/16/2000 1:46:00 AM)
And still more coming, fellas! Read the latest! Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

Tombstone -> (7/16/2000 3:08:00 AM)
Amen Nik, we have to support Matrix games as much as possible, and show the bigger commercial development and publishing companies that supporting the users equals success. Granted, wargames aren't so high profile as a lot of game types out there, but we all know how it's one of the few genres that's taken the user to it's level instead of going to the level of the user (for the most part -panzer general ahem.) We need to recognize that computer games have gotten really big, but computer wargames have not. Our support makes a difference. Tomo

victorhauser -> (7/16/2000 4:25:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by amatteucci: May I beg to differ? Of course what I'm saying is not to be considered 'holy writ' but the fact that virtually all Italian LMGs and MMGs used in WW2 had a cartridge lubricating mechanism that was really a 'magnet' for dirt and dust (and sand in the desert) caused many realiability problems. Not to speak of the funny and strange ammo feeding systems (you won't find nor belt nor a removable magazine). May be Italian weapons were not that bad, but I strongly feel that Soviet weapons were much more realiable. Consider that Italian Cavalry troops often used captured Cossak sabres since the standard M1817 pattern was made of a steel not much suitable to freezing temperatures. --Amedeo Is it possible to put a button in the Player Preferences for "BREAKDOWN %" just like we have for Rout/Rally %, Sighting %, Tank Toughness %, etc. in order to address this issue? I too, believe that many types of Soviet equipment were extremely rugged and reliable. I think that whenever the Soviets tried to build complicated "Western" types of equipment then those systems almost always ran into problems. But when they built for the common soldier in the field (e.g., the 120mm mortar, 76mm gun series, SMGs, diesel-powered T-34s, etc.) that equipment was able to operate effectively in very harsh conditions. A related feature that I would like to see in combination with the Breakdown feature is the addition of various aspects of the maintance organizations that every army fielded to deal with the breakdowns that inevitably occurred in combat. I think that it's important that if the possibility of breakdowns is included, then so should a means of repairing said breakdowns. The game currently has HQ tents, ammo dumps, ammo vehicles, FOs, etc. to support those aspects of the game. Thus, I'd like to see Repair Depots and Recovery Vehicles to support the breakdown aspect of the game, too. [This message has been edited by victorhauser (edited July 15, 2000).]

bbbf -> (7/16/2000 3:32:00 PM)
The problem I see in introducing elements like maintenance companies, is where do you stop? There were a lot of other units attached to combat units (e.g. medical teams, kitchens, religous/politicial) but in the time frame of an individual game would they have time to perform any useful work, especially under fire. Perhaps for campaigns, points could be allocated to purchasing these ancilliary units. The lack of these mean less replacment points or that it takes a number of turns for things to be repaired (i.e. has to be sent back to a higher unit for repair) or lower morale (no doctors or hot food has a pretty bad effect on combat soldiers psyche!) ------------------ Robert Lee

Wild Bill -> (7/16/2000 3:51:00 PM)
Very good point, Robert. And we know that very well here at Matrix. If too many features, ideas, alternatives, choices, options, variables, possibilities and tasks are added, the game loses one of its primary qualities: fast action. We have come here to fight, not to fix [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img]. Now I am not body slamming the suggestions, just stating now my own personal view. It could keep on until you have a soldier dropping out of a squad to answer the call of nature, or stopping for chow. Maintenance in the middle of a red hot battle is often not an option. If a barrel on a machine gun melts and the Japanese are on top of you (using Michael's illustration), you instinctively grab your carbine or an entrenching tool. Some items are quite feasible such as breakdowns are a very real factor in combat. Others become events either before or after the battle. Again, this is my personal opinion and preference and in no way downplays or belittles others suggestions. Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

victorhauser -> (7/16/2000 7:29:00 PM)
Hmmmmmmm... Well, we already have ammo dumps and HQ tents. We also already have ammo carriers and FOs. Those items don't seem to slow down play or otherwise hurt the game. Introducing a maintenance depot similar to an ammo dump would be a static feature. It would also have to be purchased as a unit just like an ammo dump, which means that players wouldn't have to buy it if they didn't want it. (As an aside, having a repair depot would give scenario designers a few more options to work with.) I don't see how this would hurt play or slow down the game. Recovery vehicles would be analogous to FOs, ammo vehicles, and barge carriers. I don't think that players go overboard when purchasing support units like ammo carriers and FOs. There just never seems to be that many in play to hurt the game. Likewise I wouldn't think that having a recovery vehicle or two, or a repair depot which never moves, would hurt the game in any way. Indeed, I think it would be a valuable addition to SPWAW. My memory may be going ("my mind is going, Dave, I can feel it...") but I recall reading somewhere that during the Battle of Kursk (and presumably at many other battles involving other nations) the German maintenance units and recovery vehicles were up close and personal to the fighting.

Jon Grasham -> (7/16/2000 10:15:00 PM)
Just my take on it. The recovery vehicles may be ok, since they can pull an immobilized/damaged vehicle away, saving that side the points, but any repairs to take place would be well out of the timespan in the scenarios. Beyond a thrown track, which itself could take well over an hour to fix, what good would they do? If the engine breaks down, then a multi ton engine must be removed, a new one available, and dropped in. Same with a transmission, traverse mechanisms, etc. These would be multi day repairs for the most part. Perhaps pulling units out of the mud/snow/swamp would be a use of recovery units as well though. :-)

Wild Bill -> (7/16/2000 11:03:00 PM)
My point exactly. Its a nifty feature and in one sense would not slow down the game as far as the computer goes. It would slow it down in the sense of having more to do, more to keep up, more "housework." Of course, Victor, you are saying you don't mind that. And I am sure others don't mind that either, especially if it is an option. I'll be candid, though. There are other features that for me are a higher priority. And as John has pointed out, it is difficult to pull a tank from the field under fire, move it back to a repair depot and have it back in action in time to influence a battle. I'm not badmouthing the suggestion, just wondering about it's practicality and realism for the scope of the game. WB ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

Drake666 -> (7/16/2000 11:15:00 PM)
Agree with you their WB. Would be a nice feature for scenarios or campaigns but for a Email game or a IP game I would never use it. As is I never use the ammo dump or the HQ tent in a Email game and I hardly ever use ammo trucks. Something like this I could not see myself buying a recovery vehicle and a repair depot in a Email game. Points would be better spend buying extra units and saying hell to the damaged ones.

victorhauser -> (7/17/2000 5:42:00 AM)
I'll remember these words when the breakdown rules are installed and active in our games. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] When the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth begins, then Micheal Wood will get to work some more overtime I guess. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

Wild Bill -> (7/17/2000 6:16:00 AM)
I already do that Victor! And worse [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

Exnur -> (7/17/2000 9:23:00 AM)
I was wondering, couldn't tanks with ploughs on them push tanks out of mud? Maybe ploughs would be useful to clear roads, especially after a 4 tank pile-up.

Kluckenbill -> (7/17/2000 11:19:00 AM)
I really think that it would be useful to add recovery vehicles and also the ability of like sized vehicles to recover other vehicles. Most of the time when a tracked vehicle "breaks down" that means it has thrown a track. Although I can't speak with certainty for WW2, I have commanded tanks and PCs in Germany and I have thrown more than my share of tracks. When maneuvering across difficult terrain it wasn't uncommon to lose more than half of our tanks (M60A1s) at least temporarily, M113s were MUCH more maneuverable. Depending on the situation, it can take anywhere from 1/2 hour up to many many hours to repair the problem. Also the ability to traverse difficult terrain, as well as the ability to repair the damage, both are dramatically improved with experience. Regardless, I like the concept of more uncertainty caused by the new damage rules. Keep up the great work.

Wild Bill -> (7/17/2000 12:13:00 PM)
No promises, guys...We will discuss it. I hear the voices... I always hear voices [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

Tommy -> (7/17/2000 7:52:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by Jon Grasham: [snip] If the engine breaks down, then a multi ton engine must be removed, a new one available, and dropped in. Same with a transmission, traverse mechanisms, etc. These would be multi day repairs for the most part. [snip] Jon, In the book "Death Traps" written by an American Maint. Battalion officer, he said that the standard process in battle was to replace all lost tanks within 24 hours. The replacements were almost never the original tank; usually it was a rebuilt tank that had been in the system for a few days or a new tank fresh off the boat. He said they were able to meet this 24 hour goal most of the time. That doesn't help us here though, 24 hours is out of the frame for our battles. Tom PS: He said his Division ended the the war (D Day to Berlin) with about a 600% tank replacement rate! ie, they went though 1,200 tanks for their 200 tank group. [This message has been edited by Tommy (edited July 17, 2000).]

JJU57 -> (7/17/2000 9:53:00 PM)
The new features while looking great still leave the unanswered question of how the AI will respond to it. It has been asked by three different people but no answer yet. How about it? How will the AI handle these new breakdown features?

Wild Bill -> (7/17/2000 10:21:00 PM)
Michael Wood should answer this one and I am sure he will....WB ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

jsaurman -> (7/19/2000 8:31:00 AM)
Just one more quick thought on the "breakdown" feature. In Panzer General 3D Assault, they have an option to skip a turn to "repair and refit" the unit. If the breakdown feature is implemented in SP:WAW, it might be a good idea to incorporate something like the "rally" button, but for maintainance, and it would have the same sort of variable chances of being sucessful. This would simulate the crew of the tank trying to do a field repair on a weapon or track. This could also be used to simulate the rescue of a vehicle from an immobilized condition. The unit would be prevented from doing anything else, like firing or moving, if this was selected. Maybe it would also increase supression or make the unit more vunerable to enemy attack at the same time, as if a tank crew gets out to repair a track, anyone can take a pot-shot at them pretty easily. JIM

rexmonday -> (7/19/2000 9:23:00 AM)
I read in one of the postings either here or under some other heading that it was possible to load tanks onto prime movers. The example given had some weird bug about loading a PzIII or IV onto an Skdf-7 and ending up with an eighteen man tank crew. I played about with a few tests and found that it does appear to be possible to do some kind of recovery vehicle simulation as things stand with the current OOBS. I was using the British Hippo heavy truck as a recovery vehicle (which does say it can load guns, infantry and vehicles - presumably meant for barges). It seems that you can lift some of the British tanks with it, without causing any aberrant crew number reports. This means that it is possible to move immobilized tanks, relocate them, and indeed, give them a more useful facing (particularly useful for non-turreted vehicles?). However, I guess that if the vehicle is immobilized due to swamp or mud conditions, then the recovery vehicle is also prone to becoming immobilized in the effort of extracting it. Maybe this will provide some kind of work around to some of the debates. As an end note, I was amused to see that it is also possible to load a Matador truck onto another Matador truck. Plausible if it is meant to be towed, but I don't know how the flags work for towed/internal carriage... ...of course all this just leads to speculations about simulating British sunscreen tactics (tanks disguised as trucks during the desert war), by "loading" a tank onto a truck, and then tweaking the truck attributes in the scenario editor so as to give it the smallest possible values when it is destroyed by the enemy (crew=1, cost=1), ie. when the thin fabric coating is shot off the tank... ...interestingly enough, vehicles loaded onto other vehicles retain almost full movement when their mount is shot out form under them, even if by close assault, which seems kind of weird. I guess a lot of this might just be working on the assumption that the only vehicles loaded will be barges. anyhow, any response to the above?

Jon Grasham -> (7/19/2000 11:35:00 AM)
Quite true, however, this would negate the entire concept of a repair shed/recovery repaiur teams, as this is what is modeled by buying/"repairing" a destroyed or otherwise knocked out/disabled vehicle in the upgrade segment of campaigns. Keep in mind though, this is for US armor formations as well, they had more tanks coming in then they knew what to do with. For other nations, 1 or more days depending on the severity is probably more realistic. Soviets made a lot, but their logistics system left much to be desired. And the Germans, well, they were ready to do whatever it took to get a recoverable vehicle back in shape, because they may never get a replacement. :-) Japanese, well, they could rumage up some paper and build a new one I guess. :-) quote: Originally posted by Tommy: Jon, In the book "Death Traps" written by an American Maint. Battalion officer, he said that the standard process in battle was to replace all lost tanks within 24 hours. The replacements were almost never the original tank; usually it was a rebuilt tank that had been in the system for a few days or a new tank fresh off the boat. He said they were able to meet this 24 hour goal most of the time. That doesn't help us here though, 24 hours is out of the frame for our battles. Tom PS: He said his Division ended the the war (D Day to Berlin) with about a 600% tank replacement rate! ie, they went though 1,200 tanks for their 200 tank group. [This message has been edited by Tommy (edited July 17, 2000).]

Fredde -> (7/19/2000 2:43:00 PM)
Recovery vehicles would be very nice, they were there historically and could be a fun addition to a scenario. The use of them would be realistically fairly limited though, simply because most reparations take a lot longer than the scope of the battle that's pointed out here already. However, i can think of one exception from this. Pulling a stuck tank out from a small river, mud or whatever should be very possible.. and for a trained crew this is very fast work, especially with a specialized vehicle to help. Most of the time the tank is just stuck and not broken, dug down with the tracks too deep with no chance to get up.. (I've been there, very embarrassing to explain to the platoon commander how the hell my tank could get stuck :-) ) A thrown or broken track, the most common way of losing a tank in rough terrain can be repaired fairly quickly by well-trained crews. Our record was 16 minutes, although this of course varies between different tanks.. anyone know how easy it was to repair a track on a ww2 tank?

PR^Spanjab -> (7/19/2000 7:24:00 PM)
As far as I am concerned any new options like this are great as long as they are optional and can be turned off. That way if the AI isn't coping well you can just turn it off, or likewise if you find the housekeeping slows the pace too much you can choose not to use it! Surely a winner?

rexmonday -> (7/19/2000 9:30:00 PM)
Okay - I was a bit overhasty in my assumptions about what would happen when one used peime movers or heavy trucks as recovery vehicles. Remember - never try and second guess the SP engine. This machine is full of ghosts... Here's what I did: I rolled a Matilda about in the mud by a lake until it got immobilised. This happened right at the edge of the water, on one of the beach hexes. The Matilda had entered from the NE, and so the tank's body was pointed to the SW. Then I tried to lift it out with a Hippo heavy truck. I drove the Hippo down into the same hex, and it managed NOT to get bogged down in the mire. I then loaded the Matilda onto the Hippo, using the normal 'L' command. I drove the Hippo out of the beach hex and back onto terra firma. I then unloaded the Mattie and... ...it still had Move:0. This was to be expected. However, what I didn't expect was that wherever I put it down and picked it up again with the Hippo, regardless of the Hippo's direction of travel or alignment, the Mattie's body retained the nose to the SW alignment. So, as I say I was somewhat overhasty in my assumptions as to what would happen - I had expected the Matilda to have been unloaded sharing the alignment of the carrier vehicle, this is, after all, what happens with all other carried or towed loads - even those which have speed zero, such as AT-guns or ART pieces. End result: one can shift immobilised vehicles, given a powerful enough loader, and so set them down again in either a safe zone or a better firing position, but their body will retain the direction it was facing when they were immobilised. Under certain circumstances this could be useful, but 'realistically' if a truck can suck them out of the mud and cart them away to safety, then it should also be able to nudge them around sixty degrees or so when it sets them down again. All I can suggest is that you play about with the heavy trucks and prime movers and see what results you get for yourself.

Tombstone -> (7/19/2000 11:57:00 PM)
That's amazing, I think I need to purchase one unit that can carry tanks just so that mired vehicles aren't totally useless. I hate it when I get an assault gun accidentally crashed into a building facing another building. Now I'll grab it and take it back to defend the back-field like an AT gun or something. I hate that feeling of wastage when you get immobilized units that point into useless areas. Part of me likes the realism of sending a bunch of units forward knowing that some percentage of them will go down just for trying to get there, but being able to use them in a secondary role as defenders somewhere away from the action sounds nice. Tomo

Nikademus -> (7/21/2000 1:36:00 AM)
one nice feature about a repair/recovery vehicle....it would provide yet more fodder for some interesting scenerio creation....as long as there are enough turns! one could even make it an alternate form of 'victory' by acumilating points by successfully recovering abandoned tanks!

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.578125