Things to Like, Thing to Dislike.

Things to Like, Thing to Dislike. (Full Version)

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

Message

Wallymanowar -> Things to Like, Thing to Dislike. (8/1/2000 4:18:00 PM)
Hi Everyone, First of all I'd like to say that I've been away for four months and during that time a lot of significant things have happened in the Steel Panthers World. First of all SPWAW has arrived, in all its versions up to 2.3. Second, SP2WW2 has been updated to version 3. While to most of you this will seem like very little has transpired, to me, my favourite tactical game involving WW2 has undergone several major revisions. Before I left on my trip, SPWAW was just about to be released to the public in version 1. SP2WW2 had been released in version 2 and was awaiting revision to version 3. I was eagerly wainting for both (mainly because of the offer of the long campaign for both). When I returned, SPWAW was in version 2.3, awaiting version 3 and SP2WW2 had been released in version 3. Now, being the SP fanatic that I am, I downloaded both updated versions of my penultimate game. Now, you are about to receive my opinions on both (tremble all ye mortals [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]). First, SP2WW2 - wonderful game, terrible graphics compared to SPWAW. Not making use of the improved 800x600 graphics detracts from the game. The physics of shots is wonderful and both games deserve a lot of praise for their adaptation of the realistic affects (and effects). SP2WW2 falls short on their treatment of the long campaign IMO. While their inclusion of countries such as Italy and Canada is aplaudable, their exclusion of the Pacific is inexcusable. Their treatment of the OOBs is IMO a lot more accurate and should be taken as an advantage. Next, SPWAW - the breakdown of the OOB's is inexcusable - for the research that you people (and other's WRT SP) have done some of the OOB's are simply out of whack - so many inconsistancies are apparent that it would take me another post just to list them. Just take the OOB's from SP2WW2 and compare them, at least those are closer to historically accurate. Another thing, include national ranks. Having my units led by commanders who are ranked according to their American equivalents is insulting to say the least, especially since other versions of SP had the decency to give them an equivalent national rank. While SP2WW2's tendency to give the unit's in the national flavour is a bit disconcerting (to me at least), at least they give some bit of national flavour to their units. Next, some treatment of the aspects that have received a lot of attention WRT both games. Fortifications - Wild Bill is right, don't make them indestructible. But on the other hand don't make them useless. A good commander will bypass the strongpoints that he can't overcome and destroy the strongpoints that he can't bypass. The Americans had a good strategy for reducing strongpoints that they called the corkscrew - use a tank's gunfire to supress the SP and advance a unit (engineer) with a Demo charge or a Flamethrower in order to close assault it and destroy it. This was a strategy born of necessity, not because the game mechanics made it impossible to destroy the strongpoint (just some points to consider). Next - Artillery - I get the distinct impresssion that some of you have developed the false impression that artillery was controlled effectively as it was during the Vietnam War. Let's get this out of your heads. Artillery support was (and is) controlled by the unit's contact with the artillery support unit. Back in the bad old days of WW2 this meant one of three methods - Direct contact (ie. runners), Radio contact (iffy at best - I'll explain), and telephone contact. Starting backwards, I'm going to explain the problems with each. Telephone contact - In order to have telephone contact with a supporting artillery, the unit has had to have a relatively un-affected LOC (Line of Commmunications) with their supporting artillery unit. This sort of scenario is consistant with a unit which is conducting a static defence of a position or is conducting an assault on a position which the unit has been able to set up advance communications with its supporting artillery. This involves having a secure land-line from the unit to its supporting artillery. Radio Contact - During WW2 wireless communication for most combatants was problematic at best. First of all the wireless unit (radio) communication was spotty (ie. sometimes you got it sometimes you didn't) at best. For example, having the wrong crystals in their wireless prevented the British Airborne units at Arnhem from contacting their units for at least 24 hrs (a very critical time). I think that ASL gets the closest approximation of the use of wireless with their radio communication rules. Next, Radio communication was most likely between an artillery unit and someone directly attached to that unit (ie. an FO or a NGO, or for that matter (WRT airstrikes) an AO). The final consideration is direct contact - units were most likely to be able to direct the indirect fire of supporting artillery units if they were in direct contact with the firing unit. In most cases this occured with supporting Mortar units and this accounts for the reports of Allied units about the effectiveness of German Mortar, since the German Mortar units were more directly controlled by the local units (this also accounts for the Allied support for the 50 and 60mm Mortar units than can really be justified). IMO With the exception of Mortar units, artillery support should not be allowed to units unless they are engaged in assaults, or defence against assaults for the majority of situations. For those exceptions, Artillery support should only be supplied to units which have a FO or NGO and only be controlled by the FO or NGO. For that matter, Air strikes, unless they are part of a pre-bombardment strike, should not be allowed unless the player has an AO able to direct the planes. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. ------------------ 'Bitter Mike'

crazyivan -> (8/1/2000 4:42:00 PM)
...........bitter mike did you say your a steelpanthers fan?.hmmmmmmmmm [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Guderian -> (8/1/2000 6:17:00 PM)
Hey hey hey ! I can't find anything "wrong" with Mike's post - i actually second almost all of his points. IMO finding bugs and errors in the games is one of things that makes you a good fan after all...so cool down friend !

johnfmonahan -> (8/1/2000 9:09:00 PM)
I agree, especially with the arty. Everyone thinks that all countries in every era call arty like the american army (see previous rants on same topic). Unfortunately, I think little can be done without a major AI rewrite. Maybe eliminating FOs for non western armies beyond one per battery(except the US).

Seth -> (8/1/2000 9:22:00 PM)
Ummm...actually, I don't think that SP1 had national rank equivalents. But is has been a few years. You must be very easily insulted. Anyway, I would love to see not only national ranks, but national rank insignia, preferably in color.

Wild Bill -> (8/1/2000 9:27:00 PM)
Welcome back Mike! I'm sure the dramatic changes in the SP world in your prolonged absence must be quite a surprise. Both games have come a long way. Both games have immensely improved my play of Steel Panthers. Personally, I find the game now far above the original Steel Panthers game that thrilled me so when it came out over five years ago. Five years. Talk about durability! You have addressed a number of issues here. I think you have some valid points. There are areas for improvement in both games and we are working on that in SPWAW. I'll speak to the issues you brought up pertaining to SPWAW. Our version 3.0 is a big step forward. I'm very pleased with what is coming. But generally I'm pleased also with what I have up until now. Room for improvement? Of course! And that is what we are about. I think you'll agree (I could be wrong) that what we have is an huge improvement over what we had. We are aware of some deficiencies and are trying our best to correct them. Your post, however, raises some questions in my mind. It seems very negative. The title in the post says "Things to like; things to dislike." Yet I really don't see any mention of anything that you liked - only what you dislike. Did I miss that? You mentioned nothing of what you found that you liked. Does this mean there is nothing in the game that you felt was improved? Or did you feel that was unneccesary? Your post seems also argumentative. Your statement, "That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it," sounds like a challenge. This is a forum and you are entitled to your opinion. I respect that. I may or may not agree with you, but neither of us is going to feel obligated to change our mind because of what the other one has said. I've read your post carefully and taken seriously all that you have said. It is food for thought. It is also another opinion about the game from your perspective. I appreciate your contribution to the forum. Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games [This message has been edited by Wild Bill (edited August 01, 2000).]

Wild Bill -> (8/1/2000 9:32:00 PM)
Oh, I don't think Ivan needs to cool down, Guderian. He only asked a question. Just as Mike has issued a very strong statement about his opinion, Ivan can certainly question him. Why would that require a "cooling down?" I think you may have your "cool down" finger pointed in the wrong direction. WB ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

Paul Vebber -> (8/1/2000 10:14:00 PM)
The SPWaW OOBs have been down a long hard road. Yes, they need a lot of work, but we in large part are working from scratch (vehicle wise anyway) because of the completley different armor combat system. To find even approximate data for every piece of tactical equipment at the level of detail we are talking in all of WW2 could be a life's work. We have been at it in the present form a little over a year. The current data set represents over 750,000 pieces of data just for units and weapons. That is the aspect I think is most important. AS to units and formations - Where did two "book" units ever fight each other? "Historical accuracy" formation wise is in many ways a fools errand. What is the "introduction date" - how many of a vehcle need to be in theater or even produced to "turn on" in the game? That is one reason we are adding the "combat squads" function in version 3 so (if you want) your infantry will not be at "book strength" very often. If we could we would make "Comabt Formations" but that was not doable. So from a "TO&E" standpoint you can only be "historically accurate" in scenarios set up to depict specific battles where you know the exact strengths of the units involved. Again difficult. And usually not very fun. So my emphasis has been on representing the weapons and units. 750,000 data points to cross - correlate, idiot check, etc. We had over 50 posts arguing ONE (the front turret on a Tiger). Then there is how many points should a T-34/85 be compared to a Tiger? The changes in the system mean we can't simply import the "old values" even for SP:ww2 becasue ours is a very different game! We have been working on this completely independantly of SP Camo group. Their OOBs are more mature. They have had several years more development than what we have, and have focused on formation data largely and kept the "classic" SP data for much of the unit and weapons. We have tried to avoid "comparing notes" with them so we get two independantly researched sets between the two games. We have recived help from a hard working group of fans from this forum and our Beta team. But I wish I had a nickle for every variation I get. There is hardly a consensus on what is "historical" so we lose some folks right off the bat becasue we pick someone else's version they perceive is wrong. We can't do in a year, what took other groups 3 or 4 years to do, and at a much higher degree of detail to boot. And we can't "copy off their paper" even if wanted to take the low road becasue of the differences in the games. So we muddle along improving things a bit each build. This is not an excuse for the many many inconsistencies and errors in the OOB's. Just an explanation for why it takes so long to "get them right" (whatever that means - since no too people will ever agree on everything in them anyway:-) So the bottom line is "Mea Culpa" on OOB problems. The alternative would be to just not release the game until we have the OOBs "done" which we felt was not justifiable given it would be about another 12-18 months to get then to the same level of maturity as the SP:ww2 set at our increased level of detail - and even that would be open to considerable Monday morning Quarterbacking. We are committed to improve them, but decided people would rather enjoy the game now despite the fact an ANZAC Stuart might be cheaper than a UK one, or have a little different armor, or be available a few months too early, or some planes bomb loadds aren't quite right, etc. We will fix these things in time! Version 3 should be a big step in that direction. But we plan to issue that in several steps over the course of the summer.

victorhauser -> (8/1/2000 10:48:00 PM)
Paul and Wild Bill I really admire the aplomb with which you face the emotionally heated posts that sprout up here. How you guys keep your cool is amazing! I salute you!

Graf Speer -> (8/1/2000 11:41:00 PM)
Thanks to Mike for his thoughts on nationalist command structures, forts, and artillery communication. My take on his "that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it" I dismissed as a simple but earnest sounding rhetorical bluff [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] that challenges or begged to be challenged in order to further discussions. It obviously worked. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] However, in light of Wild Bill and Paul's rich explanations, this discussion proved extremely enlightening to me - maybe Mike, too. Incidentally, Wild Bill, I believe we can read by a sort of devilishly cloaked indirect inference that Mike definitely likes the 800X600 display [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/cool.gif[/img] . . . but you're right, I think if Mike had inserted all the cool things he likes about SPWAW he would have had to hire a short novel editor to produce it here for us, yes? [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] I just want to thank all of you on this thread for conducting a most civil and richly informative dialogue. By sticking around here, I actually am learning a hell of a lot of good stuff from you guys! It must be Miller High Life time . . . but I will wait 'till afternoon because disciplined [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif[/img] German architek never drinks and draws. Albert [This message has been edited by Graf Speer (edited August 01, 2000).]

Nikademus -> (8/2/2000 1:37:00 AM)
Paul, you WB and the Matrix gang need to be commended just for putting up with us and all our little nitpicks. and that guy who started the thread on the PZ-VIe turret? he needs to chill yeah, that guy Nikasomething CHILL There's more to life than measuring armor. (he says as he once more cross references the mantlet armor on a PZ-IIIj) ;-)

Wallymanowar -> (8/2/2000 1:50:00 AM)
Argggg! Sorry about the tone of my post, I really didn't intend it to sound so much like a rant that it obviously does. Also, my use of some terms was misappropriate. On that note, I'd like to reply to Bill and Paul. Both of you (and the development teams) need to be congratulated for the immense amount of work done on this project - believe me, for my part, it does not go unappreciated. Bill - things to like - I love the game. As I have mentioned in posts on the Shrapnel site this game comes the closest to duplicating my favorite board game, ASL, on the computer that I have seen yet. The improvements just keep coming and coming - this is meant to include both SP2WW2 and WaW. My favourite is the long campaign, I'm so glad that both games have reintroduced them, and if I had my way every nation represented by an OOB would be able to run one (imagine just trying to keep your Rumanian or Italian force alive to the end of the war - it might sound frustrating but it will certainly test your abilities as a commander). The things I like about both games would keep me going on and on - conversely, the things that I find detract from the games are few enough in number to be able to write a post about on this forum. Paul - this one will be more like a rebuttal, please take it in the constructive form that I am intending. First of all I have to agree that a person could make a life's work out of just trying to find the TO&E's of all the units that participated in WW2 - fortunately for us some people already have and the research is already done for us for the most part. The point I'm trying to make is that the 'maturity' of the OOB's in SP2WW2 is one example of that research, there should be no apologies for using that in your own game - retracing all that ground on your own is a waste of time and effort since you'll probably come to the same results using the same methods that they have used ie. book research, discussions, player input, etc. I also agree that units were almost never at their full book TO&E - mostly due to combat, but including such things as sickness, injury, breakdowns, and accidents. Unfortunately, I recognize that including that effect involves a lot of editing of OOB's and possibly even recoding of the game engine itself. I applaude you for considering that in v3. All in all the work that has been done is incredible, and the best part of all was that both games are free!! ------------------ 'Bitter Mike'

johnfmonahan -> (8/2/2000 2:29:00 AM)
Best damn game there is !

Paul Vebber -> (8/2/2000 3:47:00 AM)
I under stand rants - haveing been a "pro ranter" in the past Well, we started out using Scott Grasse's SP:SL OOB's Scott's life intervened and he had to withdraw substantially from participation (so blame me for the bad stuff since then :-) I was responsible for weapons and units and am fairly clueless on formations so I have been tutored by many more knowledgeable than I in the past couple months:-) I think you will see the detail in teh version 3 Poles, Finns, French, Japanese, Russians and others is vastly improved thanks to the input of "countrymen" with incredible knowledge of their national history, many using native language reference inaccessible to many of us. AS the formations are concerned this may be effort to reinvent the wheel, but I think you will find some vast improvements in version 3 formations! My efforts to sift through and pick the nits out of unit and weapon data will take a couple more months, but by labor day or so when we have to close teh book on SP:WaW for a while, I think you be amazed at how far these OOBs have come and the distinct character they have - quite different from SP:WW2.

Drake666 -> (8/2/2000 4:42:00 AM)
Paul I think you did a pretty good job on the unit formations. Its impossable to get them prefect, becouse they were changed so much for each nation during the war and what they were on paper was never the same as they were in the feild. Anyone who thinks so is liveing in a dream world. Formations often had other units attached for deffrent missions and formations were often mixed with other formations for deffrent reasons.

crazyivan -> (8/2/2000 2:33:00 PM)
if any one took offence to what i siad please don't it was not a personal attack but a friendly hint to add the lemon to lemonade what i mean is the bitter taste of lemon(ie bugs etc)is much better to take in if the sugar of priase is added as well so the guys whom have to drink in our suggestions and findings every day find it all the more easier and thus more rewarding to give all that they can and do give GO YOU GOOD THINGS. ps.good to have another fan to here from mike. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img]

troopie -> (8/3/2000 8:46:00 AM)
An example of the possible difference on OBs and why completely and totally accurate TOEs in a computer game are impossible. According to H.R. Heitman, SA infantry companies in WW2 were organised precisely like UK infantry companies. According to Allport, they had an organic recce section. Some TOEs I have seen have a scout section attached, some do not. I conclude it could have been different for each brigade. MY companies have a recce section because I find it useful, but if YOU don't wish one, you mave have it your way. troopie ------------------ Pamwe Chete

Tombstone -> (8/4/2000 3:58:00 AM)
Quick question... how many people do you have on the team working on SPWAW Matrix?? Tomo

Paul Vebber -> (8/4/2000 5:03:00 AM)
Sorry, the details of how we run the business are, well... our business [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img]

Desert Fox -> (8/21/2000 9:25:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by Paul Vebber: Sorry, the details of how we run the business are, well... our business [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] I read that as: I don't know how many folks are really working on it. Let's see, there is little Jimmy who brings me coffee, little Tommy who brings me donuts, and there is little Sarah who brings me my medicine. Their parents have long since forgotten about them. Well at least thats what I hope. We have a bunch of guys out testing how realistic the survivability ratings for the armor actually are, though that number changes daily. We have 14 armed guards who make sure the programmers don't get out of their holes, but no one has been able to accurately count the programmers. They are really good at hiding in air ducts, apparently. There are the graphics designers, but at least half of them are in a bar any given minute. There is also our website and PR staff. Last I heard, they were working on improving our Hawaii base of gamers. Thats what the email said anyways... And then there are the guys who work on the oobs. They were buying a new pair of shoes for a baby in Las Vegas, or something like that. So to answer the question, we have a busy staff, too busy to actually count.

Wild Bill -> (8/21/2000 10:10:00 AM)
Thanks Bitter Mike, you're not so bitter after all [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] Nice post and we take it to heart. The Matrix Staff...er, what day is it? There is a listing with pictures of the key players at Matrix right here on the site. If the Matrix you describe exists, I am one pissed off dude! [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/mad.gif[/img] I wanna be on the Hawaii staff! I want free coffee...WB http://www.matrixgames.com/contact.asp Fortunately, I was dressed for the occasion. Now where is that tie [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] Desert Fox and Tombstone, you would be surprised. My wife brings my coffee here in my study (when she is of a mind to do so [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif[/img] ) ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

Supervisor -> (8/7/2000 8:56:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by Wild Bill: There is a listing with pictures of the key players at Matrix right here on the site. Haha, I like the picture of me. That is what happens when someone pisses me off at work... [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.890625