Cover effects (Full Version)

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



Message

RobertMc -> Cover effects (1/7/2008 1:48:10 AM)

Hello gentlemen,
A little about me before I begin my comments: I've played SP since its first incarnation from SSI. I was involved way back in discussing on Genie (sometimes heatedly) the weapons ratings with James Wirth, and I believe I was the first to remove the annoying bugle-blow sound from the cavalry .mel file. I had written to SSI asking them to take it out, got no answer and so I did it myself once I figured out not to mess with the .mel header. I uploaded it onto Genie for people to use and I'm not saying that the cavalry sound you currently hear in the game is mine, but I was there at the beginning.

Currently I'm using SP-enhanced, version 8.403.
I have come to the conclusion through testing that the cover effects in the game are
negligible, to say the least.

The terrain.txt identifies the following terrain types as being "Excellent Cover": multi-buildings, rocks, rough, and stone buildings.
Identified as being "Very Good Cover" are boulders, gullies, trenches, and wood buildings.

I'm here to say I believe there are some (a little) cover effects in rocks, rough, boulders, gullies, and trenches, but the buildings have none. They may as well be clear terrain. If you hit or miss someone in a building, it's not because of the purported cover effects but
because of the game's hit/miss routines.

Think I'm wrong? Try any urban combat scenario for yourself. There are several involving Stalingrad. See if any squad supposedly in a stone structure stands up longer than they would in regular clear terrain. The hex description may say "Stone Building" or
"Wood Building", but I don't think there's any cover protection at all.

I think that earlier on in the series the cover protection was there, but I'm thinking that the changes done to the vehicle breakdown routines per versions 4.0 and 4.1 may have
removed the cover protection effects and rendered what should have been Stone Buildings, Wood Buildings and Multi-Buildings to be essentially as vulnerable as clear terrain.

For clarification: in the history of SP, in v 4.0 vehicles breakdown chances when moving into building hexes were halved. Then, in v 4.1 vehicle breakdown chances when moving into building hexes were again reduced by one-third.

My opinion only, of course, based on my testing. I'm thinking this hasn't come up before because possibly most people don't play the urban combat scenarios and no one (except Mike Wood?) really knows what the cover protection numbers are (or ought to be).

Anyway, give these urban scenarios a try and see if your squads hold up very long. Or, on the opposite side, see if you're not "killing" too many men in buildings when they ought to be well protected. The problem with not having cover effects in these
urban scenarios is that it makes manuever pretty much useless.



Steve Petersen -> RE: Cover effects (1/7/2008 2:53:04 AM)

Now that you mention it...

I placed a lot of hope on terrain for cover and don't seem to be able to derive any noticeable benefit. If this is really the case I hope it can be addressed.



junk2drive -> RE: Cover effects (1/7/2008 3:43:18 AM)

I played SPWAW 7.1 first then found a used copy of SP. Been away from it for a while and recently started up again. I do not seem to get what I expect from any building, trees, crop fields etc. ISTR bomb craters would give some protection/cover too.

Or it could be wishfull thinking...

I'm happy with the breakdown setting or I will turn it off. It is a game. I hate to have my thinking replaced by ramdom events.




RobertMc -> RE: Cover effects (1/7/2008 6:58:25 AM)

Yeah, my original post was primarily about the lack of cover from stone and wood buildings, but honestly I don't see much difference in any of the terrain types. I do recall playing a game where the "rocks" and "rough" terrain seemed to be helping the squads
that were in the hexes, but it was a long time and many versions ago.

A little history of Steel Panthers that might be interesting and have some relevance to the subject:
the squad-level games that Gary Grigsby did for SSI that could be called the ancestors of
Steel Panthers--Panzer Strike, Typhoon of Steel and Overrun!--were WEGO, with pulses instead of turns. In those games, vehicles were forbidden from entering hexes with buildings, either stone or wood.

As I understand, Steel Panthers was supposed to be WEGO but somewhere in the development became IGO-UGO, which likely caused some problems right there. In the first version of SP, no vehicle was immobilized by any kind of building. As a matter of fact, any tank became a super bulldozer that could ram through buildings one after another.

I understand also that someone at SSI liked the idea of tanks ramming through buildings because he liked the "crashing" sound.

In the first version of SP, buildings offered no protection for infantry whatsoever. Maybe the documents said they did, but I say they didn't. That first version was strictly a tank game with infantry as tank-fodder.

Fast forward. Steel Panthers version 4-8 has taken the game to unbelievable heights, but
I'm thinking that many of the old problems are still there and likely can't be fixed. It's
really just my opinion that the vehicle immobilization in building hexes has had something to do with the lack of cover in those hexes, but it could be that juggling those numbers has
affected other numbers elsewhere in the game that govern the cover effects.

After all, the terrain.txt specificially spells out what cover ought to be "Excellent", "Very Good", "Good" and so on, but I just don't see much difference in the terrain when I play the game.

I think it's interesting that all the work done by Matrix and individuals to craft new buildings and so on may be for nothing, since the code may not even be "seeing" these buildings.

Also, to junk...
Really doesn't matter whether you turn the vehice breakdown preference off or on. This issue is probably buried deep in the code and has to do with the immobilization of vehicles that try to pass through a building hex.

What I would wish for is another slider from 0 to 200 on the Preference Screen where you could adjust the "Cover Effects" for everything that was considered "Excellent", "Very Good", or "Good" cover. (It would also include trees, so you could change the density of woods).

Ain't gonna happen....



Korpraali V -> RE: Cover effects (1/7/2008 8:19:17 AM)

Hi RobertMc,

That's interesting. Mostly because my experience is quite different. I seem to find cover from buildings, rocks etc. And I have played several city battles lately. One possibility is that I'm usually playing different version: Enhanced DV or DVRN mod. Although that's a mod and doesn't do anything in game code, including terrain code. However, iirc MG effectiveness was reduced...




RobertMc -> RE: Cover effects (1/7/2008 8:47:57 AM)

Hello Korpraali V,

Yes, it is interesting, because I too am playing the Enhanced DV mod. I have three copies of it on my computer, one with an Infantry Toughness Preference of 100, one with an Infantry Toughness Preference of 150, and one with an Infantry Toughness Preference of 70.

In all versions, I am not seeing any appreciable defense cover given by Stone or Wood Buildings. By "appreciable", I mean watching squads fire back and forth from building to building and not seeing the same number of casualties as when they're firing from clear terrain to clear terrain.

There may well be a defense modifier involved, since you've seen a reduction of MG effectiveness, but would you call it an "Excellent" defense modifier?

Did you also see the effectiveness of rifle fire reduced?

Are you satisfied with the defense cover that a Stone Building gives? It seems to me that once a squad gets into a stone building, they would certainly have a strong defensive advantage, and two squads shooting back and forth from stone buildings of equal height would have a marked dropoff in casualty rates and--depending on the range--might even go several turns with only one or two hits.



vahauser -> RE: Cover effects (1/7/2008 10:11:27 AM)

Cover does make a difference, but perhaps not the difference you expected. 

Cover affects armored targets differently than non-armored targets.

Armored targets get the benefits of cover whether they fire or not.  Non-armored targets only get the benefits of cover when they do not fire.

This is easy to test and to verify:

Test #1
Put a machinegun nest in open terrain, in woods terrain, and in a wooden building.
You will see a significant difference in the chances to hit the machingun nest depending on the cover.
In addition, tanks in cover go "hull down" making them more difficult to hit.

Test #2
Put an infantry unit in open terrain, in woods terrain, and in a wooden building.
Turn the weapons of the infantry units off.
Now fire at the infantry units.  There is a difference in cover.
However, infantry units that fire from cover do not seem to get any benefits from that cover.  THIS is what seems to be weird.  And THIS is what seems to be causing this thread to be written. 
Anyway, if you want to get the benefits of cover with non-armored units, then you cannot fire those units for them to get those benefits.
But cover does make a difference if you do not fire.



Whitmire -> RE: Cover effects (1/7/2008 3:06:42 PM)

I concur, terrain definitely has an effect on how much damage the unit suffers. Terrain seems to be especially useful against artillery fire and direct fire, when the unit is not firing back. I don't know whether it helps when the unit is firing back (are we talking about OP fire here?), but terrain definitely has an effect, which has, I admit, become smaller since the older versions, when you could fire at a unit in heavy cover for several turns without hurting anybody. At least that's how I remember it from the early '90s.

In my last game one of my MMGs spent an entire round firing at scouts in rough terrain without hurting anybody. However, as soon as another team appeard in open terrain, the scouts died quickly. The same happened to two AT teams, who were a bit too courageous. Similarly I noticed a great difference between different types of terrain in short-ranged combat during our 8-turn fight over four victory hexes in some dense woods. Units in wooded terrain were able to absorb a volley of fire with few casualties while units caught in the open or while crossing roads (probably the worst terrain ever) suffered telling casualties in just one volley of fire. Of course my observations may be just due to luck, but I have a strong feeling that terrain does have a definite effect in a firefight.

I'm afraid the game would be useless if terrain had no effect at all. Even now I'd like to see more refined terrain effects, like airbursts killing infantry in wooded terrain. Unfortunately nothing can be done about the terrain modifiers.

Jungle terrain seems to offer greater protection to infantry units, so the effects of getting caught in the "open" (dense undergrowth or high grass) are somewhat less dramatic. Perhaps you've been fighting too many USMC vs Japan battles? ;)

By the way, I'm using 8.403 Enhanced.



RobertMc -> RE: Cover effects (1/8/2008 1:23:23 AM)

Hello Vahauser,

I read your comments late last night and was too stunned to reply. I'm still trying to get my head around this one:

"However, infantry units that fire from cover do not seem to get any benefit from that cover."

If this is true--and I know from reading your posts that you have a high degree of knowledge about the game--then I really don't know what to say. I presume also that
any movement by infantry in "cover" also removes the defensive benefit of that cover.
Therefore, for instance, a one-hex movement from Stone Building to Stone Building or from Trees to Trees would remove the defensive benefits of that cover?

I've noted that someone decided a while back that infantry smoke should be seen through and fired through by enemy units, I suppose for the sake of "reality". Unfortunately, when a squad in a tree hex, for instance, fires smoke into the next tree hex, if they can be seen they can be shot at (and casualties caused) even if they have not fired at the enemy. So, going along with your statement above, I presume an infantry unit in an "Excellent", "Very Good" or "Good" Defensive-rated hex loses the benefit of that cover if they fire Smoke. Which kind of means that firing Infantry Smoke is absolutely useless.

I made my first comments in this thread about Stone and Wood Buildings. If your comment is correct, Vahauser, then urban combat between infantry units can not be
accurately modelled, as the player is getting penalized for what you're supposed to do
to play the game: fire and movement.

If this is true, then every scenario except those strictly involving armor is compromised.
In other words, you cannot trust your defensive position to give you any cover in the heat of battle.

On another forum, I've been reading about modern combat in urban environments. They're talking there about recent news stories of pitched battles between units in stone or concrete buildings, expending hundreds of rounds and not getting any hits because both the firer and target are keeping their heads down.

I certainly play SP as a "game" more than "reality", and I don't want to see a battle between units in buildings stretch out for hours of gametime, but I do want to see a strong
defensive effect for terrain that, according to Matrix's own terrain.txt, is rated "Excellent",
"Very Good," or "Good". I'm not seeing it, which makes me think that the game is useless for portraying fire-and-movement or, for that matter, combined-arms.

Another thing that may have happened along the years of SPWAW's versions is upcreep of weapon hit strength and accuracy, along with an upcreep in other numbers that affect a squad's staying-power. I'm thinking that the terrain defensive benefits were fragile from the beginning, and increasing the power of weapons--particularly squad weapons--may have overwhelmed whatever defensive benefits there were to begin with.

Okay. I've had my say. I think increased terrain defensive benefits would make this a better game. I think there's not going to be anything like SP anytime in the near future.
I'm 55, and I'm still waiting for SP to reach its full potential or someone else to pick up the series, clean it up, and deliver.

Until then, this is my message to Matrix, if they're still listening here: I'd be willing to pay someone to do some more code work on SP to try to clean up some of this. I'm not talking chump change, either. And yes, I'm fully aware that my opinion of the game's faults may not be shared by everyone--or anyone else--but I'm basically offering cash for Matrix to make me a personal "custom" game--specficially, to at least try to let squads retain the defensive benefits of the hex they're in when they fire or move, and to increase all "Excellent", "Very Good" and "Good" defensive-benefit hexes by x2 or x3.

$500? $600? Matrix--or Mike--let me know if this is possible. If it is, and it works, Matrix could then offer the patch to anybody who wanted it.

To Whitmire,

Thanks for your comments. This really sums it up for me:

"I'm afraid the game would be useless if terrain had no effect at all".



vahauser -> RE: Cover effects (1/8/2008 3:18:55 AM)

RobertMc,

As others around here will attest, I am NOT an SPWAW apologist.  I find myself frequently taking a contrary stand compared to the SPWAW "establishment".  I agree with you in principle regarding the way SPWAW models terrain effects on combat between non-armored targets in different terrain.

The main difference between me and everybody else on here, though, is that I treat SPWAW more like chess or checkers rather than a realistic simulation of historical WW2 combat (which it absolutely is NOT).  So, to me, the current terrain effects on combat don't trouble me too much.  I know that if I don't shoot back, then my non-armored units will get the full defensive benefits of terrain.  So, I try to draw fire from the other guy first using diversionary units.  That way, he will lose his defensive bonus first when I retaliate.  I agree that this is gamey and not very historical.  But since SPWAW is gamey and not very historical in this regard, then I'm simply doing what the game pretty much demands that I do if I want to keep my units alive.

Anyway, since I don't think of SPWAW as anything more than a game, then to me the anomalies regarding defensive terrain effects involving non-armored units is not a 'deal-breaker'.  I continue to play and enjoy SPWAW for what it is to me:  a challenging and fun game.  It's still the best game I've ever played in this regard.



Alby -> RE: Cover effects (1/8/2008 3:22:26 AM)

I wish you would pay them to change the artillery delay times..
[:D]



Korpraali V -> RE: Cover effects (1/9/2008 9:11:56 PM)

Sorry for the late replay.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RobertMc

Did you also see the effectiveness of rifle fire reduced?

Hard to say. Haven't looked it in that way. I have the general 'feeling' from my games that stone buildings etc provide more cover than open terrain etc. Naturally during one single game things may have quite large variation but in general I've had such a feeling. What I can say is that bursts (from rifles or MGs) that kill some 5 or 6 man at once won't happen in buildings (excluding building collapsing) but do happen in open or at times in woods too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RobertMc
Are you satisfied with the defense cover that a Stone Building gives? It seems to me that once a squad gets into a stone building, they would certainly have a strong defensive advantage, and two squads shooting back and forth from stone buildings of equal height would have a marked dropoff in casualty rates and--depending on the range--might even go several turns with only one or two hits.

I'm pretty satisfied. It's true that in RL squads could spent hours stucked in one building or so. In SPWAW that's not possible. But it's hard to say how could it be made so, because the cover the building offers is not the only reason for that. One of the reason is also that real commanders never had such a perfect picture of the battlefield we have in our games. We know the location of every single unit and know when and where they'd need help and where to withdraw if the situation gets too hot.

Adam Smith's Invisible hand taken to SPWAW use [;)]



Swamprat -> RE: Cover effects (1/11/2008 10:53:32 PM)

I too have wondered about whether buildings gave as much cover as I would have liked them to. I kept getting the feeling in games that they just weren't modeled the way they should. I have never myself been involved in urban combat of course, and I only have the reports of historians to go by, so I don't really know what the 'proper' level of cover really should be.

However, this post piqued my interest and I wondered if RobertMC had a valid point about the issue, with perhaps reasons that had never occurred to me before.

So I set up a test using Enhanced DVRN.


I took four German MG42's and put them up against four Soviet infantry units (weapons switched off).

The MG42's were all set to 70 experience to give the same firing effectiveness. The Soviet units were all set to 70 exp and 70 morale, for equal results.

Two Soviet squads were set in an open hex. Two in a building hex. The MG's all fired at a range of exactly 10 hexes. Each MG had 6 shots per turn.

I then played the scenario I'd created.

In the first turn:
One Soviet squad in the open received 6 casualties in total and dispersed.
Second squad in the open received seven casualties and dispersed
Third squad in house received 1 casualty and 17 suppression points
Fourth squad in house received 3 casualties and 29 suppression points

I ran the scenario again for just one turn.
Both squads in the open received multiple casualties and dispersed again
Both squads in the houses received 0 casualties and 18 and 15 suppression points respectively


Note: No actual Russians were harmed in the making of this experiment [;)]

Conclusion: Houses provide more cover than open hexes.



RobertMc -> RE: Cover effects (1/12/2008 3:50:19 AM)

Hello Swamprat,

Very interesting results from your test. I suppose there IS some cover from buildings, though not as much as I would personally like to see.

I'm using Enhanced DV, and one thing I realized is that I was testing by using the Stalingrad scenarios, and that the Fire Control numbers for Infantry in those scenarios are very high. I think that for some units they are "4" and "5". I believe Enhanced DV and Enhanced DVRN has done away with Fire Control numbers for Infantry by resetting the FC to "0".
Also in some of those Stalingrad scenarios, there are 14 to 27 men packed into a hex.
That is a LOT of rifle firepower coming out of one hex, and I believe the DV and DVRN have also upped the Accuracy and Hit numbers for some of the Infantry weapons.

In other words: the urban combat scenarios I was playing were both overloaded with soldiers in hexes and the Infantry Fire Control numbers were very high.

Again, I still think--at least for my own particular wishes--that the value of cover in general is not high enough, but I really think I was bitching because even though I certainly agree with vahauser that SP is a challenging and fun game, I am waiting for the next SP and hoping that the little nits and problems and things that make you go "Huh?"
will be fixed in Steel Panthers 4 or whatever the next version is.

It's crazy to me that a new version of SP is not being worked on--and maybe it is, since
I'm certainly not in the "know"--but I'm just hoping it's sooner rather than later.

Thanks for running the test, and thanks for the comments.



Korpraali V -> RE: Cover effects (1/12/2008 4:58:46 AM)

Hi RobertMc,

Some of the scenarios really differ from the regular game pretty much. Those three Stalingrad scenarios are such. Some designers like to model one squad as a platoon and give them more men and firepower than normally. That naturally affects immediately to battle results.

In the Depot (www.spwaw.com) there are PBEM league which has several city fighting maps and several players have played them through. I'd like to suggest you to join in and start looking at them - do you PBEM? If you do, you'll find plenty of opponents from there and have a good possibility to check the city fights in 'normal' form. [:)]



FlashfyreSP -> RE: Cover effects (1/12/2008 2:17:20 PM)

When we overhauled the OOBs for Enhanced, we discovered that infantry units had been given FC ratings, which the original design did not use; Mike Woods informed us that no infantry units should have FC, and that many units had FC ratings that were "out of range" for the SPWAW code. He had disabled part of the FC range from the SPIII code, which dealt with modern-day tanks, but OOB designers over the years had added them in and kept raising them, ostensibly to "fix" perceived problems in the performance of various units. We removed the ratings from all infantry units, and reduced the FC ratings of all vehicles, some drastically, in line with Mike's original programming design.

As a result, Enhanced combat is less "arcade-style", with units missing hits more often, and infantry less likely to perform "Rambo-esque" manuevers.



RockinHarry -> RE: Cover effects (1/29/2008 4:59:38 AM)

Houses surely give lots of cover, but much of it is neglected at melee range (1 hex) and when building occupants are shooting back, which the game assumes to be better targets, when showing themselves shooting from windows, doors, gaps in walls ect.

Personally I find cover effects in stone houses to be a bit light, so i improved stone building hexes in my custom made scenarios, by adding entrenchment attributes with Fred Chlanda´s editor.

For more details about the scenario (Stockheim clash) see here pls:

http://spwaw.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5329

additional info can be found in a document that can be downloaded from my signature below.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7832031