(Full Version)

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



Message


troopie -> (1/16/2001 4:16:00 AM)

Regardless of mines or ambushes AmmoSgt. I'm sure they want you there ALIVE. troopie ------------------ Pamwe Chete




Charles22 -> (1/16/2001 10:13:00 AM)

After CL is made and I've bought it, I suspect that I'll favor the RTS over the WEGO. RTS can have a infinite number of turns so to speak (you should see how I micromanage my forces in AOETC - every badly injured unit goes back to the medic, er, monk) with constant pausing possible, though I guess nobody would put up with that when playing HTH. I just can't imagine RTS with real armor ratings, but it would seem that's what we're going to get. I would think that RTS would help make flank attacks more dramatic and that there would be more sideshots on units (if Matrix can accurately include turn-speed and turret traverse speed on units, that would be EXCELLENT, something SPWAW didn't have enough micro-turns to simulate).




Alby -> (1/16/2001 10:13:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: If we don't come up with a product to sell, we won't ever fix anything. As it is we have "donated" a heluva lot of time (=$$$$) to SP:WaW. As someone noted we can only go so far on good intentions and "pixie dust". If there are things wrong with the OOBs, there is a forum to discuss them. We are working on what will likely be the "final" oobs for some time... [This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited January 14, 2001).]
Dont get me wrong...i know the hard work you all have done, and you will be getting my money for CL, just for the simple fact it comes from you. Your time and work has been greatly appreciated... Alby [This message has been edited by Alby (edited January 15, 2001).]




Paul Vebber -> (1/16/2001 10:59:00 AM)

One of the problems with trying to simulate the exact kinematics of teh vehicles is that the human elment of teamwork amonst the crew will make it impossible to do very well. LIke most things, the "degrees/second" turn rate of teh turret isa factor, but not always the controlling function. If the TC anticipates the direction of attack, or the driver and gunner cooperate weill with TC to "help" the turret around a bit (while considering other threats) gets REAL hariy very quickly. What will likely happen is that turrets for instance will likley be rated on a 5 point scale from "very slow" to "Very fast" and this will factor into the possibility of a tank turning to engage a target. But so will the TC and platton leaders tactical expertise rating. Part of a good model is knowing where the limits of your data and kinematics are. So while sneaking up behind that Tiger pointing the other way will generally be a good thing, on occasion, against a superb TC or platton leader, you may get a nasty surprise...even if we knew the complete kinematics data, it would not be realistic for "max spec" performance in every situation! Since nody knows the kinematics data for all the various vehicles, (particularly considering the human factors elements) we have no choice but to use an abstract rating that gets at the idea, including the human elements, but is not perfect.




Alby -> (1/16/2001 11:04:00 AM)

CC: "It' a visit to Fantasy Island or West World (film with Yul Brynner), where (in this case) miniature robots put on a show for you to make feel like a hero without you getting hurt." This was posted by a CC player in the CL forum.... Fantasy island huh? West world...lol Well to me...I prefer "historical Island" And when I lose my favorite tank or favorite leader..I DO get hurt!! SP rules!!




Paul Vebber -> (1/16/2001 11:56:00 AM)

The point is to get folks to talk about shortcomings in their respective games. To carry back remarks from that forum to ridicule them with will hardly facilitate a free exchange of ideas... Lets not get juvenile with this "Our game rulz - those guys sux" routine...OK?




Lars Remmen -> (1/16/2001 12:11:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: The point is to get folks to talk about shortcomings in their respective games. To carry back remarks from that forum to ridicule them with will hardly facilitate a free exchange of ideas... Lets not get juvenile with this "Our game rulz - those guys sux" routine...OK?
Paul, I couldn't agree more! ------------------ Lars Nec Temere - Nec Timide




AmmoSgt -> (1/16/2001 12:51:00 PM)

ohhh alright darn well it was kinda fun for a bit but aw gee Paul we was just having fun ....




Fredde -> (1/16/2001 4:42:00 PM)

A model taking into account the experience of the crew as well should be great. Just to have the feature in the game at all is a wast improvement .. thanks!
quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: One of the problems with trying to simulate the exact kinematics of teh vehicles is that the human elment of teamwork amonst the crew will make it impossible to do very well. LIke most things, the "degrees/second" turn rate of teh turret isa factor, but not always the controlling function. If the TC anticipates the direction of attack, or the driver and gunner cooperate weill with TC to "help" the turret around a bit (while considering other threats) gets REAL hariy very quickly. What will likely happen is that turrets for instance will likley be rated on a 5 point scale from "very slow" to "Very fast" and this will factor into the possibility of a tank turning to engage a target. But so will the TC and platton leaders tactical expertise rating. Part of a good model is knowing where the limits of your data and kinematics are. So while sneaking up behind that Tiger pointing the other way will generally be a good thing, on occasion, against a superb TC or platton leader, you may get a nasty surprise...even if we knew the complete kinematics data, it would not be realistic for "max spec" performance in every situation! Since nody knows the kinematics data for all the various vehicles, (particularly considering the human factors elements) we have no choice but to use an abstract rating that gets at the idea, including the human elements, but is not perfect.




Alby -> (1/16/2001 7:36:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by AmmoSgt: ohhh alright darn well it was kinda fun for a bit but aw gee Paul we was just having fun ....
Ya we was just havin fun...ok my bad, no more bashing...altho the post i took it from was a bash at sp...but i digress...




Silvarius -> (1/16/2001 8:03:00 PM)

Paul, First, you did really well in posting these 2 topics about CL in this SPWAW forum. Please keep on with that, as I just don't have the time to go to every Matrix forums (it took me more than one hour and a half to read every messages of these two threads, and I just can't spend the whole day on it [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]). Then, it is also much easier to discuss on real stuff. When you ask "what would you like to have in CL ?", it's hard to reply. When you ask what we like in SPWAW, it's much easier. And eventually, when you ask what we think of a precise feature (backed with an example)as you've done in explaining a few features of the CL combat system, then it becomes easy to give you our feedback. Now a few feedback/suggestions : 1) The CL combat system you describe is really very close of the one I was dreaming of. It seems to me that it takes what I love in a turn based system (having time to think and to plan)and it comes close to solve the problem of simultaneous actions which was one of the big flaw in the SP system. For example, when you want to assault a target with multiple units in SPWAW, you have to make it one unit at a time. That leads to "strange" situations where one unit can fight several other ones at the same time. To illustrate that point, there is a good example in one topic of this forum today. The situation is one tank fighting with another one just in front of it while spotting and fighting an infantry sqad in its rear. A second advantage of this system is the ability to fluidify unit movements. Once again, it is a big flaw in the SP system. Right now, we are condemn to a stop and go system. Let's take a vehicule moving. You initiate the move on your turn. At the end of your turn, the vehicule is still supposed to be moving, so it won't be able to spot or fire accurately in your opponent phase. And when you get the hand once again, your vehicule is stopped by definition even if it is really in the middle of a planned move that takes several turns. 2) A suggestion : I would like to be able to have one soldier, belonging to a recon team hidden behind a wall, peering out discreatly on the other side. In SPWAW, it is not allowed. You have to move in plain LOS of your opponents to have a chance to spot them. For vehicules, you can imagine a member of the crew of a hidden "Kubelwagen" getting out of the vehicule to "have a look behind that building" before moving the vehicule out of shelter. 3) I'm a bit worried by your decision to abandon the hexes grid. Not that I find it particularly lovely, but it is a good mean to evaluate distance precisely and to locate a unit on the map. If so, you have to implement tools so that we know precisely what is the distance between 2 points/units. You could imagine an option, when you select a unit, that enables you to see concentrical circles around it (one circle every X meters). Same system between 2 points. You click on one location and get the cicles. You then know if , from the top of that hill you plan to move to, you can fire at that bunker down there. I can imagine a second problem when you try to hide a unit. For example, you order a recon team to hide behind a tree. As you don't have any grid, you click on what seems to be the right place. But what if the game considers you clicked (by 1/10th of a millimeter) slighly to the right of the tree. Then your team, that you think is well hidden, comes plainly in LOS of your opponent. Perhaps a way to control that point would be to be able to check the LOS of any location you click on the MAP. Well, thinking of that, that would definitively be a good option, as the "2D from above" map often doesn't enable to judge accuratly if "that small depression I can spot over there is safe from that bloody Tiger LOS". 4) You said it will be possbible, during the "action phase", to try to get control over a unit "on the fly" in order to change its plotting. If so, does the clock stops then ? It must, or you fall in what I hate in RTS : the time stress. 4) I read recently in a topic that PBEM campaigns was not to be considered, as they would be too long to complete. I absolutly disagree with that. I really would love to be able to play for years with a friend, planning my upgrades carefully for the long term, biting my teeth in difficult periods or trying to take advantage of a new equipment before my opponent is allowed the equivalent. And for the players whose time horizon doesn't exceed a couple of weeks, they could be able to create a campaign with only 2 or 3 scenarios. That's all for the moment folks ... PS : I want to thank you, Paul, and the whole Matrix team, for your fantastic work, your commitment and the hundreds of hours of pleasure you have made possible with SPWAW. I realy hote CL will be the success everyone is hoping.




Silvarius -> (1/16/2001 8:29:00 PM)

Just another word : As English is not my mother tongue (I am not the only one in that case I've noticed), could you help me a little bit by not overusing slang and abbreviations. A few messages are sometimes really difficult to read and understand (AmmoSgt ? [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]) Silvarius




Thornado -> (1/16/2001 8:56:00 PM)

I think CL shows good potential and very likely can be a good game, especially since we, the future customers, has a saying in what we want to see in the game. Many things has already been pointed out which would be nice (or cool) to have in the game and many failings, both with the SP and CC-systems. SP is very nice and has the "just one more turn" syndrome (which girlfriends don't like) but still it's obvious that the game is based on a rather dated gameengine. It has it failings, like LOS-problems, the problöem that you can use the turnmovements against the game (move inexpensive things first to deplete OPfire etc) but the feeling, the feeling in the game is so good that we endure tha small annoying things because the game is worth it. Now to my reflections over Turnbased vs RT. Man, do I hate realtime [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Especially the C&C-clones makes my stresslevel goes through the roof and what fun is that? I mean, it is ok if I am only to lead ONE group but an entire company? Hey, no way. But how to implement both RT and turnbased strategy. Well, Baldurs Gate did a admirable job with that, using a pauskey to make it possible to give new orders as the battles unfolded. Of course some actions took longer time so you had to use some thinking so the action still was valid when it was performed (many times I have runned right into my own Fireball). Another interesting game was RoboWars on the Old Amiga, using the same system (mostly) as Combat Mission, with plotting of all the moves, telling were they where supposed to look and when to overwatch and when to move. Then the turn was generated and everything was played back and time for the next round... I don't know, just ranting but I do belive in Combat Leader! Just go strong! ------------------ _______________________ Thornado - You'll never know what hit you -




Don Doom -> (1/17/2001 4:41:00 AM)

Well I quess I worn out my welcome over on CL due too many questions. I am just trying to figure out the new war system, if it will be worth my playing or not. I am still going to buy, I owe matrix a ton, Not to. I have some more questions , but I think I will wait until the dust settles a bit before asking. doom




Paul Vebber -> (1/17/2001 5:12:00 AM)

If I didn't answer your questions Don, its not because of anything you did, just must of slipped by. If there is a burning question, just start a new thread...




Don Doom -> (1/17/2001 5:36:00 AM)

None were missed, I think, it was just the way they where answered. It was the tone/way they were answered. It could be I caught everyone at a bad time/mood. Doom Ps. I will not say who.




Don -> (1/17/2001 6:34:00 AM)

Hi DD, I for one hope that you do not quit going to the CL board and asking questions. I've seen nothing from you that is out of line in any way and nothing that anyone would have a problem with. If they do have a problem with your questions, it is their problem, not something you caused. What I have seen is some of our own going over there "looking for a fight", and that's not right either. There must be input from both camps to make this work. The longer this goes on and the more I find out, the more I realize what a huge undertaking this is! Don




Alby -> (1/17/2001 8:40:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Don Doom: [doom[/B]
. I am just trying to figure out the new war system, if it will be worth my playing or not. I am still going to buy, I owe matrix a ton, Not to. Amen Brother i think we all owe them a big thanks for making the GREATEST WARGAME OUT THERE!!




Islander -> (1/17/2001 10:30:00 AM)

What I have seen is some of our own going over there "looking for a fight", and that's not right either. There must be input from both camps to make this work. ***My input is that I want as much of the grog elements of sp in cl as possible. Most of the CC'ers there spent the last couple years arguing for specifically that. We did it by incessantly pointing out the inadequacies, the firing rates, ammo loads, insignia errors, etc, many many items of which were addressed and corrected by Atomic. I have to give them an A for effort with cc5. I was a tester..I saw the effort. IE..we recognized CC as the leader in the rt genre concerning any sense of historical accuracy and have tried to bend it the right directon..knowing all along that rt wargaming is in it's infancy and has a long way to go. We consider CL a warp in the right direction. We're a kinda jaded group, so we don't mind the slants (of which there are'nt many)so much. =Hack=




Charles22 -> (1/17/2001 10:31:00 PM)

Paul Vebber: I like your explanation considering turret traverse and such, but I wonder about a key point here. Shouldn't, if you're going to implement a ratings system for such things, start with a higher factor, say 1-10? I have spoke before about if it were possible, about using precise dimensions for every vehicle, instead of the generic size fitting of 1-6, but anyway, shouldn't y'all make the generic rated areas of the game a higher factor such as 1-10 or 1-20? The game has gotten precise to a large degree with the armor and penetrations, but why not the size and other areas? I can understand that only so much can be done, but in any case I think that if precision isn't possible that a higher factor should be considered instead. BTW, why not for the RTS mode, have a tank as part of an inexperienced crew, start turning the turret one direction to acquire a target, only to find the crew member didn't hear it right, then adjusts the turret to another target before firing on the first? While the traverse rate might be the same for the same tank type, this would be a way of showing that the crew was affecting the turn rate in a dramatic fashion (though of course you could have slower traverse as well, or too speedy, so that it has to readjust while traversing [inexperience showing both lack of speed and too much]). Also with RTS, you could have those injured or deceased crew members directly affecting the traverse speed perhaps. Having only one surviving crew member ought to dramatically affect traverse. Will CL, and indeed in the current SPWAW, does ROF and other factors that might affect target acquisition, made by multiplying the crew size (and other factors such as exp.) by ROF, so that an injured member reduces the efficiency automatically, or does the ROF rating go down? It's the latter isn't it (assuming ROF is the factor affecting turret traverse, in a sense)?




Paul Vebber -> (1/17/2001 11:33:00 PM)

We will be using 'precise data; where it is available/makes sense. Turret traverse rates in degrees/second say are much "fuzzier". Increasing the 'factors" to represent something only makes sense where you can make good distinctions between the "steps" that differentate one factor from another. Defining turret travers rate as "very slow, slow, normal, fast or very fast" (1-5) is about as good as reasonable canbe accomplished given teh data available and the significance of the data on the combat situation. Other wise you get strange situations where Shermans always kill panthers just becasue the kinematics of a game overly empahasizes one vehicle characteristic. Turret travers speed was a liability if it was low, but tactis were developed to mitigate that to a certain degree. As you so correctly point out, the crews situation fighting the tank is likely to have far more effect on turet traverse rate than the physical limitations of the motor. This gets into such things as the exact engineering of the mechanism, for instance som hydraulic motors were driven by teh engine so reving the engine to higher RPM would increase the turret travers if the engine was out of gear. There is no way to model such specifics outside of a "model specific simulator" approach. We intend to lump such stuff under the "tactical ability and teamwork" of the crew... Again a balance must be struck between detailed modeling of physics and kinematics, and portraying the 'human element'. THe "kill chain" will be modeled discretely in the new game - with detect, acquire, ID, and hit chance events all required to initiate an engagement. ONce an engement is initiated, ROF will play a role in how often shots occur. The sysem will be "event based" with events taking a randonmly assigne dperiod of time, sincein "RT there are no "turns" or "shots per turn" Crew proficiency and disruption will play into teh time delays for those things to happen




Charles22 -> (1/18/2001 1:49:00 AM)

Paul Vebber: Thanks for the response. Actually precise dimensions on vehicles may be pretty easy to come by, but with new figures, new programming is needed, and perhaps it's just not worth the effort that the extra detail would give. If I understand you correctly, whilst in RTS, the tanks will all fire at the same rate, let's say they fire every 10 seconds of RTS time. I was under the impression that 'perhaps' y'all would actually make ROF and turret traverse at different accurate speeds between the various hardware, notwithstanding crew quality. It sounds as though the factoring of 1-5 will play out for the traverse, but that the ROF will not have a perceptible difference (such as a PZIIIH firing every 10 RTS seconds, while a Tiger fires every 12 RTS seconds). While I know ROF was treated by more shots per turn in SPWAW, it would seem to me that with RTS, you would have to actually create a visual difference in some measure of time, instead of more fires for a turn, since there are no turns. Surely Matrix will model ROF into a timing sphere, will they not, and a difference between models too, right (So would an 88flak have top ROF?)? Thanks.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.578125