H2H - Wishlist

H2H - Wishlist (Full Version)

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

Message

Panzer Leo -> H2H - Wishlist (12/24/2002 12:49:44 AM)
I know, I said there will never ever be an update or patch for H2H...well, after I found a few errors that really embarassed me (no, I don't tell you which errors these are ;) ) and several requests from all kinds of players and SPWAW fans, I decided to release a patch, including some changes...but don't worry, this patch will be according to the following rules: - All scenarios and campaigns converted to H2H or made in H2H have to be usable with the patch - the patched version has to be playable against the "ce" version without OOB errors (in secure games you will ofcourse have a warning, but it will not cause any errors in gameplay) That means changes are limited by these rules, but it is necessary to protect the work that went into H2H up to now and to avoid version conflicts and the chaos that would evolve if you don't have a patched version... What I want from YOU now is, to put together a wishlist...things you don't like about H2H and want to see changed, or things you were missing in the "ce" version... One example: Goblin complained about the FJ Zugtrupp not being able to catch up with it's troops...an OOB error on my side, I forgot to raise the Zugtrupp speed to 10...easy correction - is done already... Another thing that came up, was the true troop and pricing issue...as it is right now, it seems to be a coding issue...simply a problem with the way how these costs are calculated for different Exp levels and nothing I can really do about, unless I stumble across a really ingenius solution...but rather unlikely... So whatever comes to your mind, bring it down here...there're a lot of things I cannot change, but there're also enough chances to have some influence on H2H right now... Changes that already made it into the patch: - various minor error corrections like the Zugtrupp above - lethality of Snipers increased - infantry in general a bit tougher and more competetive in defense

M4Jess -> (12/24/2002 1:54:53 AM)
Cool :D (x3) How about adding all to-date H2H scenarios to the patch? H2H Peiper Camp is also almost ready... M4 Jess

Jack -> (12/24/2002 2:50:49 AM)
Hi Leo Here are some of my wishes I would like to see. This is only because I started playing some 1949 BPEM games where you pick what you think is the best possible order of battle you can come up with. Leberal use of the Nation button. #1. The Czechs have that Panther II, I want to see that included in the purchase screen. #2. They also have that 81mm mortar multiple laucher. Looks cool. Include that in the purchase screen. #3. I only play the big 100X240 maps. I noticed that allot of the Rocket type artillery you are unable to purchase. Can some of that stuff be onboard like the Whizbang and the other rocket artillery that is on the Sherman?? Thanks again, because it is the only version I play. Merry Christmas.

m10bob -> (12/24/2002 2:54:27 AM)
Your work is excellent...If this is a "wish list",I would like to see some "sandbag Sherman and M10's,and M5's.. Here's an idea nobody has been able to "solve"..Some kind of representation for the tanks equipped in the field with the so-called "culin-cutter" device..(It was usually a pair of railroad ties,stripped from the beaches of Normandy,and welded to the fronts of American Sherman and M5's,which when punched into the side of a hedgerow,prevented the tank from climbing over.Instead,the tank was able to keep pushing forward,creating an opening in the hedgerow,(with minimal speed loss).. Well Panzer Leo,you asked!!!!!!!!!!!..With your past quality work,I suspect you could probably solve this,(if anybody can). .bob(indiana via Gutleut Kaserne,FfM);)

Goblin -> (12/24/2002 3:01:37 AM)
Lose the cost cut for the Soviets and Americans? Maybe adjust a few prices too? A German 4-man MG42 team costs more (encyclopedia price) than an armored halftrack with a .50 cal and a .30 cal machinegun. This is just an example, and I know not your fault, but you did ask... Goblin- A Goblin says Merry X-Mas Leo:D

Panzer Leo -> (12/24/2002 3:18:04 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by M4 Jess [B]Cool :D (x3) How about adding all to-date H2H scenarios to the patch? H2H Peiper Camp is also almost ready... M4 Jess [/B][/QUOTE] Great idea...I will bundle them and put them in...should be about 60-70 by now plus three small campaigns, the Stalingrad campaign, a few posted on the forum and everything Jess is throwing out...we'll see how many we can get till the patch comes out :D [QUOTE]Originally posted by Jack [B] #1. The Czechs have that Panther II, I want to see that included in the purchase screen. #2. They also have that 81mm mortar multiple laucher. Looks cool. Include that in the purchase screen. #3. I only play the big 100X240 maps. I noticed that allot of the Rocket type artillery you are unable to purchase. Can some of that stuff be onboard like the Whizbang and the other rocket artillery that is on the Sherman?? [/B][/QUOTE] I am thinking of removing the rare German equipement to the Norway OOB and make it available for purchase...the main idea why a lot of equipement was taken from the German OOB and moved to the Czech is that I wanted to have a "standard set" of German equipement that is used for PBEM games and the like without Sturmtiger and Maus showing up in company strength... If this stuff would be in the Norway OOB, one could easily agree on PBEM terms like "Germany no Norway OOB stuff" and the purchase will be historical...on the other hand, if players want to play what-ifs, they can easily access these units...still thinking it over... US rocket artillery might be possible...I'll see... [QUOTE]Originally posted by m10bob [B] I would like to see some "sandbag Sherman and M10's,and M5's.. Some kind of representation for the tanks equipped in the field with the so-called "culin-cutter" device [/B][/QUOTE] One sandbag Easy8 should be in (should be displayed on the pic aswell)...it is one of the very few Allied tanks, that has "armored skirts" to represent the toughness against HEAT rounds...others to be added is rather unlikely...the US OOB is pretty much full (completely if the Rockets make it in) and the sandbacks were very rare, I think... The cutter is a tough call...I can't do much to add special vehicle behaviour, but an interesting wish...who knows, maybe someone has an idea :)

Jack -> (12/24/2002 3:30:58 AM)
Thanks Leo, For serously considering my request.

rbrunsman -> (12/24/2002 3:54:31 AM)
I agree with Goblin's concerns about purchase points. Whatever you can do to make equal point matches equal would be great for me. (i.e. X pts Germans v. X pts US or Russia or Brit. = fair fight)

Svennemir -> (12/24/2002 4:35:26 AM)
Hi Pz. Leo :D Just be careful when around those experience modifiers. As I stated sometime before, experience modifier is adjusted in 10exp increments - so if you change Soviet prices according to 65 exp, it will most probably be similarly unfair earlier in the war when the exp is 60. Also it will be a problem late, when the exp reaches 70. Also remember that German exp ratings drop to 65 late in the war. US also has a period around '43 with 65 in base exp. So it's highly unlikely that balance can be improved by changing across-the-board OOB prices! To correct the balance issues I suggest you instead lower the LEADERSHIP and/or MORALE ratings by one level (5 points) or so (open to discussion), only when exp=65. Remember the great price-gap occurs only at exp=65, so countermeasures are only necessary for nations with exp ratings exactly there (or possibly slight modifications for exp=60) What do you think of this solution? As I said, across-the-board price changes won't be feasible through all years of WWII, so something else must be done in order to restore balance. Also be very careful not to tip the balance too far - point advantages tend to have much greater impact on the game than one woul estimate (try a 4:3 battle, feels like a 16:9 doesn't it?), so the present imbalance might be smaller than you think.

Goblin -> (12/24/2002 5:07:10 AM)
I agree with you. I only ask that some of the stuff that was out of balance before be corrected now. My MG/halftrack example above is one such thing. The MG, being far less useful than a halftrack, should cost less (base cost). It should cost more than a .30 cal by istelf though, it is more effective. See? There are numerous examples of this. Even if Leo was able to just change a few, it is a big improvement! Goblin

Jacc -> (12/24/2002 5:26:10 AM)
Gee, thanks guys... You gave me a hard-on while waiting for this. I have no other DEMANDS except the one already mentioned ... make the infantry a bit stronger, especially in defence.

Svennemir -> (12/24/2002 5:40:21 AM)
Yes, infantry could be a bit stronger. And a slight bit cheaper too? Anyway, when my computer was idle a while ago I made a small test: 3000 pts. worth of T-34/85 with exp=70 (total 32 tanks) vs. 3000 pts. worth of T-34/85 with exp=65 (total 43 tanks) On a clean map, visibility 35, unlimited ammo (just for testing). Result: exp70 tanks all detroyed or disabled, only

Svennemir -> (12/24/2002 5:41:15 AM)
oops! Only 17 exp65 tanks destroyed. So there's an imbalace, yes, according to the test (which is random)

Svennemir -> (12/24/2002 6:16:08 AM)
Next test: Exp70 tanks vs exp60 tanks exp60 tanks won, but lost 21. Who wants to test infantry? ('cause I'm busy)

Redleg -> (12/24/2002 6:25:43 AM)
I would like to see for scenario design purposes: An infantry unit tucked away in Norway OOB that has a carry capacity of 2. The Watchtower and Lost Victories "special icons" added. Especially the dogs and the icons for airplances. Ammo cannister that has a weight of 2. Some small rifle bunkers with size 1. These could be a slightly modified version of the command posts. Lysander airplane put in both French OOBs. I don't know if possible or not but adding some points to the document that contains those ratings of countries so there is not such a wild difference between nations would be nice. Forgive me if any of this is already done.

Supervisor -> (12/24/2002 11:08:54 AM)
My wish please create a smaller banner or picutre (the picutre has to be linked to a URL then I can add the link to the H2H site)so I can add it to my signature for quick linking, you have done a great job in providing all SPWAW gamers such a fine product.

Supervisor -> (12/24/2002 11:18:10 AM)
Ok now I'm mad :mad: not only have the forum GODS messed with our smileys now that have limited images in signatures, I can't add any more even if I were to remove 3.:mad:

M4Jess -> (12/24/2002 11:22:25 AM)
join us G-man...join us....:mad: :mad: :mad: x500 M4 jESS~MAD AS HELL

Supervisor -> (12/24/2002 12:03:59 PM)
I'm lobbying for 7, do you feel this would be sufficent????

Goblin -> (12/24/2002 12:12:35 PM)
I would be happy with my 5 warfaces of death!!:mad: :mad: :mad: (+2) Goblin

stevemk1a -> Queen of battle (12/24/2002 2:21:21 PM)
I'd like to see infantry a little tougher in defence also! It's a little subjective, but I feel that Infantry should have a little more advantage vs. AFV's in cover terrain ... I'm not really an authourity on this, but I think infantry squads are spotted a little too easily by vehicles ... and then too easily dealt with. It's just my gut feeling though .. anyone else feel the same way? P.S. this game is still the greatest thing since ... (well maybe not!) :D

CatLord -> (12/24/2002 5:34:53 PM)
Personnaly, my only regret is in the change of the picture for the mines. I was much more prefering the new icon (with skulls and bones) than the old one. I can probably reverse it myself if you explain me how... :D Cat

Panzer Leo -> (12/24/2002 6:49:39 PM)
[QUOTE]I'd like to see infantry a little tougher in defence also! It's a little subjective, but I feel that Infantry should have a little more advantage vs. AFV's in cover terrain ... I'm not really an authourity on this, but I think infantry squads are spotted a little too easily by vehicles ... and then too easily dealt with. It's just my gut feeling though .. anyone else feel the same way? [/QUOTE] Many feel the same way and my current testing is heading the same way...results up to now are very promising... The wanted change is: making the infantry harder to spot (will be done by a preference adjustment) and giving it higher assault chances against armor and breaking less often from their positions (mainly noticed in entrenched status), without disrupting the current infantry casualty behaviour (meaning that they still die the same under MG fire, e.g.) The cost issue: Svennemir hit the nail on the head...I cannot change nation pricings, as these are not the cause of the imbalance that is felt...working on the exp levels seems also not promising, as the -10/+10 modifiers cause jumps over the magical 65/70 mark all the time...it might be, that this is a basic error in the cost calculation routine, we have to live with... The individual pricing: The whole SPWAW cost system suffers from a very simple thing: costs only go from 0-255... It is very impractical to compare weapons pricings, if they do not belong to the same category. In the case of the MG42, it has to fit in the cost line of infantry weapons, especially rifle caliber MGs M1919A4 19 M1917A1 25 M32-33 30 MG42 Laf 36 These are four quite different machine guns in increasing effectivity listed. Let's assume, the weakest MG has to stay at the 19 (to compare it to other infantry weapons) and the MG42 would be lowered to 30...then the other two would be around 23 and 26. But if you compare the battlefiled effectiveness of a M32-33 and a M1919A4, you can almost go rather with one M32-33 then with two M1919A4, and the difference in pricing is only 7 pts... I hope, I can show were this is going: if I don't have a span to put the great differences in effectiveness into, it will cause an automatic imbalance... So it is almost impossible, to compare a top notch MG on the one side to a standard transport on the other...sure, in many situations a Halftrack is more usefull, then a 4 men MG team, but on the other hand you wouldn't put it into an entrenchement to defend against an onstorming horde, or ? So this kind of pricing overlaps will happen all the time (take a four barreled AA gun...it is the top notch of small AA guns and costs more then many light tanks...makes no sense in terms of material, costs, how usefull it is a.s.o. - but there's no other way to work within the 255 limit)... So if there's no solution for an overall revolution in the pricing system, it makes no sense to alter a few specific ones... An across the board lowering of all infantry related units is such a radical way...and a pretty complex one...have to think it over... Well, and Redleg...so many detailed wishes...puh...:D I'll see what I can do...but the ammo canister - commonly available or for design purposes ? Commonly available wouldn't be possible due to realism concerns... The mine icon is an easy fix, just replace the icon with the original 7.1 ... I have to look it up...forgot which one it was... maybe Warhorse knows from the top of his head :rolleyes:

Don Doom -> (12/24/2002 9:23:51 PM)
My question is how are you editing the exe file to make the changes?

Panzer Leo -> (12/24/2002 9:49:34 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Don Doom [B]My question is how are you editing the exe file to make the changes? [/B][/QUOTE] The only things I can change, as I don't have the code, are the tables with preset values. In case of the infantry, I will try to use a simple trick...morale has the highest effect on infantry, as these unit types have to pass the most checks...being this for assaults or for determining if they break and flee with popping smoke or stay in their position...so if you raise the morale to a higher level in general, the infantry will benefit the most. Right now I'm testing for unwanted sideeffects and how a higher morale influences e.g., tanks with a raised base level of 15...no unrealistic effects appeared with other units up to now and infantry behaves very much the desired way: tougher in some situations without becoming more resistent to the main enemies, the machine gun or artillery... Elite units do put up a pretty good fight now and it is not unlikely, that the last three men of US Airborne squad will stay in the trenches to continue fighting, e.g. ... but don't worry, I'm not creating Frankensteins Monsters here...there will be no Sergeant Slaughters all around :D

Redleg -> (12/24/2002 10:05:10 PM)
This all sounds very good to me. I'll be looking forward to this.

tracer -> (12/24/2002 10:21:37 PM)
Leo, Here's something I mentioned to you a few months back: change the ammo for the Soviet P-Mol from HE to AP (like it was in v7.1). With HE they can be used against non-vehicular targets, becoming flamethrowers with up to 10 shots and a 3-hex range :eek:

Goblin -> (12/24/2002 11:44:45 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panzer Leo [B] So it is almost impossible, to compare a top notch MG on the one side to a standard transport on the other...sure, in many situations a Halftrack is more usefull, then a 4 men MG team, but on the other hand you wouldn't put it into an entrenchement to defend against an onstorming horde, or ?[/B][/QUOTE] The halftrack has two machineguns (one an M2HB!!!), armor, speed, and carries an infantry squad! The MG42 has 4 men that die easily, and is useless against armor (unlike the halftrack). Anyways, thanks again for listening to everyone, Leo! Have a Merry Christmas! Goblin

tracer -> (12/25/2002 1:08:32 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Goblin [B]The halftrack has two machineguns (one an M2HB!!!), armor, speed, and carries an infantry squad! The MG42 has 4 men that die easily, and is useless against armor (unlike the halftrack). Anyways, thanks again for listening to everyone, Leo! Have a Merry Christmas! Goblin [/B][/QUOTE] G, Two things to consider about MGs: their fire control is better than HTs and their 'zero' size makes them very hard to spot.

Goblin -> (12/25/2002 1:15:53 AM)
Understood. But once spotted, they are goners. Also, they really are not that effective. I will take two MG's, armor, speed, and infantry carry ability over any MG in the game, especially when they cost less! It's not Leo's fault, but he did ask. I was shooting for a little price shifting. The German stuff is all so darn expensive. I know one point here or there doesn't seem like much, but it is. I know it was all superior stuff in real life, but that is not reflected well in the game, so lowering the prices on some things, even a little bit, might help. Sorry, Leo, won't muck up your thread any more, LOL! Goblin:)

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.65625