(Full Version)

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

Message

AmmoSgt -> (3/1/2001 3:26:00 PM)
I think, if you have to modify wulfraums , then their are several ways 1 minimum range 2 make them 1 type (HE) only so they reload considerbly slower.. i start my career on a SWOD Mk13 BatBomb and some of those old systems took a while to get into battery so to speak...these new fangled hitech toys make folks forget that sometimes .. 3 consider possibility of making them non reloadable 4 I like the not firing to reload .. i can't see guys straping rockets on one side while they are flying off the other but that just me .. 5 Let the US have 4.5" MRL and the Russian have Katuska onboard and let the german player write the rules for both sides ...

skukko -> (3/1/2001 3:53:00 PM)
When a child grows and opens eyes to see surrounding world, child looks close and sees parents. Kid takes word of mom and dad as a messages from a God. Child don't understand all, but that misunderstanding he hides behind the behavior of his parents. He duplicates and acts as his 'Gods' do. If he ain't doing so, he gets older ones angry, and he don't want that. As soon as kid realises that, -despite of acting like his parents, he gets 'Gods' anger on his thinny neck, he starts to grow knowledge of himself. In this point blanc child begins to think on his own. He don't understand methods of separating good thoughts and bad acts. Child starts to search for thin red line between light and darkness and again looks first to his close support, parents and the community where he lives. He sees people doing same things in different ways and gets more confused about what is expected of him. He asks for guidance on the hard road he is starting to see. He gets flow of possible truths and he starts to analyze information. First he takes common opinion, the one that is yelled louder than others. ( Starts engine )He notices that even if it is comfortable way, there are some scratches at the shield it covers. He looks second best of his 'What to think to be accepted'-list, and starts to investigate voice that can be heard thru the yelling. ( Gets first gear on ) By his learned common sense he can melt these thoughts together and create his own. ( Drives out of garage ) He focuses to justify his own thoughts and starts to seek more information to clear that mess in his mind. He starts to live. He likes the taste of having an own opinion. How can I say to new person that he can't go that way or this is right road to roam, without making my own opinion clear and giving him opportunity to deside himself what to accept ? I am a question, not a answer to him as well as he is question to me. Rules of meeting human has been written in the common knowledge of our own history. I can't get angry if this meeting an alien starts a war because I forgot to say: RTFM before opening any discussion. In this Forum that manual can be found under the 'search' -button and by filling empty line in there with words that are missing. What alien do find from there is manual to understand why we get angry of prelayed mines in meeting engagements, why we yell because some has seen rocketlauncher in the topic, why we do get along with each other in here. Apologises for insulting myself by thinking my own is not accepted. simo kukko aka mosh

Silvarius -> (3/1/2001 4:45:00 PM)
Hello, I would try to add a few ideas that I hope you'll find useful. First, the best way to play "historically" is to play with historical scenarios. After having played several randomly generated battle, I tried a scenario ... and I love it (it's still in process ...). By the way, as I know that several famous scenarios designers read those threads, I would just make the suggestion that, for each scenario they design, the txt file specify if it is suitable for PBEM game or not. When you send a scenario to one of your friend, you usually don't want to disappoint him. But as you can't test it if you want to play it with him, you just don't know if it will OK for PBEM or not. Otherwise, to play interesting battles (historicaly settled or not), I'll advice first to choose a custom map instead of a randomly generated one. I promess that, if you've never tried yet, that once you'll have tested it (one designed by Wild Bill for example), you won't even think of using random ones anymore ! You'll find plenty of them in the game or on web sites. Then adjust the fronts and victory hexes with coherence. It's supprising how some imagination in those areas can change the face of a battle ! Then design an introduction briefing. It can be something like : "Village X is lying on the path of the 3rd Pz division. Intelligence reports that a small enemy group is trying to reach it in order to establish a defensive perimeter. Your orders are to form a recon group than must secure the area before the bulk of the division arrives." Then, you can establish a few special rules to fit your briefing. For example : no offboard arty, 1 air section maximum. No heavy tanks and 1 platoon of elite infantry maximum. Insist that your opponent respect the spirit of the briefing (ie : recon group). Or course, these are only examples. You can let you imagination run ... In addition, for those who want balanced games, a good solution is to play "mirrored games". You can settle one battle as described previously. Then, you send the map files so that your opponent set the same battle, but swapping sides. Both battles are then run at the same time. To calculate the score, just add your score in both battles, then compare it with the one of your opponent. The victory rules can then be applied. And at last, if you feel your opponent doesn't suit your gaming style, just tell him (politely) ... and look for an other one. There are plenty of PBEM players, and I'm sure you'll eventuelly find a good numbers that will suit your style. I was a bit long, but I hope that will help some of you ... a PBEM fan, Silvarius.

ruxius -> (3/1/2001 5:42:00 PM)
Very agreed with WB.. I would like to tell you this : One day I invited a friend to play SPWAW at my home...I was so enthusiastic to be able to play SPWAW with a human opponent that I organized in one second hundreds of campaigns with limited points ecc.ecc. I was dreaming about what we could be able to do ..but he downed me simply telling me " Let the carnage begin .. " ...and we played a battle with thousands of TIgers and JSII...Before battle started I felt very alone...I played that battle just for fun but I thought how could be some players so interested in that unrealistic Suddenstrike-like unuseful ways of playing a wargame... I can summarize this in two issues : 1) Learn to understand the sense of existence of minor Panzers as PzII-f or MArders or Sdkfz..and learn to use it 2) the taste for defeat... 1) I love scenarios very much because they provide an exstensive use of minor kinds of units and weapons..the first thing I love to do in the first turn of a new scenario is discovering in it which is the 'limited' composition of my battalion...and how that weapons are intended to be used there at their best ! 2) Mistakes in moving units , lost firings , bad deployments are the best calls for reality.. and so does the concept of defeat.. These things are beyond victory... I am looking for opponents that are able as me to "share the experience" rather than living for the purpose of victory.. Recently I played three PBEM scenarios of Ardenne's battle for SP1 edited by WB with another friend ... I 've lost two battles and won the last... but inside me I was very grateful to the scenario designer and to my friend ...It has been a way for me to go back in history and to live 'on the field' that dramatic moments. Experiencing wins against the final need for victory.. Very glad to read here that finally I am not alone anymore !

bbbf -> (3/1/2001 7:42:00 PM)
Having started out using the best equipment, I have moved to more realistic forces. Generally I think most gamers start off with the glamour stuff because of the legends that surround it and because you want to win 8) As you play more many (not all!!) players start thinking ...what if? And from there you start to play with the lesser units or an historic oob. But I think for the newbies at least there is nothing like commanding a company of the best. They will soon learn against decent human opposition that superior tactics often neutralises these uberunits. Then you try thinking sneaky..... Honestly though I think it is dead wrong to limit people's choices how they want to play. I really think it is up to the players to set the rules for their particular engagement. If you forget a loophole and your opponent exploits it, well that is like real life (& battles)you should know better next time

Mark Ezra -> (3/1/2001 8:33:00 PM)
A thought or two on PBEM: For years I wargamed alone. When I got my first PC and found SP I was in heaven...but still alone. Playing the AI seemed enough to me. Besides everybody seemed so knowledgeable and sharp I was afraid of embarassing myself (not losing). This went on for years. It was the advent of the CM beta Demo that broke the log jam for me. A new game made for a level playing field was my logic for trying PBEM. So upwent my name on a PBEM play list (with the normal "please be gentle I'm new to all this" plea.) Wow...a brave new world. Guys who think like me, guys that don't. Guys who love the historical accuracy and guys who love to crush the OPFOR, Funny, bright, or just plain pains in the butt...Gee just like the real world. A filtering process developed and continues to this day. I play PBEM with SPWAW and CM almost exclusively. I've learned I can play against the A-historical types just as well as my preferred historical buds. The funny thing is (and the point of all this) If I like the guy I'll deal with the style. I say try PBEM, you may never play the AI again.

Don Eddins -> (3/1/2001 9:12:00 PM)
Amen to the comments by Silvarius and ruxius above. A well designed scenario balanced for pbem or online play, with an historically realistic mix of units is a thing of joy and beauty. Eternal gratitude and blessings on Wild Bill and Figmo and the others who have exerted the effort and time to produce those that exist. Silvarius is quite right that it would be a big help if the designers indicated in the notes or in the title that a scenario was balanced for human vs human. To those of you who have not yet attempted pbem with a scenario designed to be played that way, try it. You won't like it; you'll love it. I have been fortunate to find players who, like me, don't mind losing if the battle has been hard fought. For us, it was not winning or losing, but the fighting of the battle to the best of our abilities, in a situation that has the feeling of reality. This is where SP:WaW really shines, and where the talents of the best scenario designers become so evident.

lynchc -> (3/1/2001 9:59:00 PM)
It seems to me that the solution isn't to alter or remove units, entirely, but to have an enforceable nanny. You click "all the best" and you can pick endlessly. You pick "historical" and you're left to only one heavy tank platoon. You pick "percentages" and you're allowed only a force that represents that countries total output of tanks (this isn't to say that there should be 3 T34s to every Panther [if RL reflected that or not], such that 1 tank would represent every 5% produced etc. The prededing is an outstanding idea. Personnally I play both realistic and "best available" the game should be able to accomodate both. Historically accurate balance is built into most scenarios but I would simlply LOVE a setting in the battle generator that would place historical limits on force structure. Of course that would have to have some complexity to be totally realistic for player generated battles and player purchased units. For instance year, location, season, theater, country, hell even political considerations could be brought into it. I think that this idea warrants further study and would be an outstanding addition to v. 5.0

Charles22 -> (3/1/2001 10:42:00 PM)
It amuses me somewhat that on at least a couple of occassions when we've talked about excessive use of rare or super-powerful units, that someone came along with excessive forces in my opinion, but they didn't think so. Recently one poster said they used 8 rocket launchers, while I recall another used 8 88mm flaks. True, such numbers may be somewhat proportionate or historic, but only in the event that you're using 200 units or more. One of the problems we have, for campaigners anyway, is that some of us come from the old school. In the old school you didn't get so many upgrade points, and if you used too many at one time (more than 10% of your force) you were delayed fighting for a month or more. So what can happen in this game, is that you have so many upgrade points available without a penalty for upgrading the entire army, that you might feel like you're not doing as well as you could if you leave the points to build. Here's an idea!!! Why not gift the campaigner who "doesn't" use the points, not with the penalty system necessarily since the AI could have the newest stuff all at one time, theoretically, but instead give the campaigner bonus points for not using them (which wouldn't add to the status of the outcome of the battle)? Now that would make things interesting. Although this is getting a bit tedious on my part, I would suggest the same thing be done for unused ammo, but clearly perhaps both idea may necessitate being regulated to CL.

Resisti -> (3/2/2001 12:00:00 AM)
I'd agree with WB, but for an "insignificant" particular: what you all WWII/OOB experts/historians out there would do with people like me (and I think I'm not alone) who LOVE playing this game but are not able to make an "historic" buying phase,cause they dont know the military history of WWII ? do you put them all in a ghetto saying,pls come back when you've learned at memory the OOB's of at least three countries ? do you refuse to play with them ? I REALLY wanted to play historic battles,but I'm simply not capable to make the right historic choices. And then? What to do ? I think this is the only realistic solution: quote: Originally posted by Charles22: [B] It seems to me that the solution isn't to alter or remove units, entirely, but to have an enforceable nanny. You click "all the best" and you can pick endlessly. You pick "historical" and you're left to only one heavy tank platoon. You pick "percentages" and you're allowed only a force that represents that countries total output of tanks (this isn't to say that there should be 3 T34s to every Panther [if RL reflected that or not], such that 1 tank would represent every 5% produced etc. [B] And be sure that,if something like this will be implemented in the game,you'll see me choosing 100% of the times for the historic button... ------------------ Federico "Resisti" Doveri If you cannot defeat your enemy,join him.

lnp4668 -> (3/2/2001 1:09:00 AM)
One thing I love about spwaw is that you could fully customize your force. That why Europe in Flames have left my HD, but SPWAW still the most often used games. It maybe unrealistic to upgrade all your tanks to Tigers once they are available (that was how I started) but it was just too fun to resist. As I learned the game, however, I begins to experiment with more historical mix. In doing so I have to play with proper tactics in order to be effective. Thus I am a much better wargamer now (I think \|-)) than before I started with spwaw. In short spwaw allows gamer the ability to play with a training wheel, then to take it off when you are ready. I guess those who continue to use the training wheel to win are not ready to grow up.

Lou -> (3/2/2001 2:09:00 AM)
Good points, all. It seems that if ahistorical games are a problem, then better communication with our opponents is one answer. If two people make clear and reasoned guides for the game, the resulting contest will be much more satisfying to both parties. I would suggest one strong guide over all, however. Avoid max points games. If ever there was a kid-in-the-candy-shop temptation, this is it. And, I speak to this with an enormous mea maxima culpa here. I'm playing a max point game and I freely admit that I got happy with the artillery (also, for the large forces we're playing with, I'm not sure what is an appropriate amount of arty). Luckily, I'm playing against a 'net pal of mine and we're joking about it in the email (the email discussions are almost more fun than the game for me). He has swarms of tanks, I have clouds of artillery. This wouldn't have been the case if we played without going to max points. SPWAW is a great game to spark learning about military history...but it can also be a great chance to improve communication. Excuse me...but I'm expecting a call from my FO. ;-) [This message has been edited by Lou (edited March 01, 2001).]

Warhorse -> (3/2/2001 2:21:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by Resisti: I'd agree with WB, but for an "insignificant" particular: what you all WWII/OOB experts/historians out there would do with people like me (and I think I'm not alone) who LOVE playing this game but are not able to make an "historic" buying phase,cause they dont know the military history of WWII ? do you put them all in a ghetto saying,pls come back when you've learned at memory the OOB's of at least three countries ? do you refuse to play with them ? I REALLY wanted to play historic battles,but I'm simply not capable to make the right historic choices. And then? What to do ? I think this is the only realistic solution: And be sure that,if something like this will be implemented in the game,you'll see me choosing 100% of the times for the historic button... Of course, you are correct. I too often forget that everyone is not as fortunate as myself and others, to have an extensive military library! If I had the time, it would be a great venture to assemble TOE's for all the countries, for all to browse through. There are sites out there that somewhat cover this, but not too easy to find. Scott Grasse's work is very good, but unfortunately only cover a few nations. This is a very hard thing to overcome. I think I sometimes get more of a kick assembling my force, than actually playing.....almost!! ------------------ Mike Amos Meine Ehre Heisst Treue

skukko -> (3/2/2001 3:55:00 AM)
For hysterical values for your games you can look up these links: http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/003863.html Was it at Pack Rats or Tankheads page theyhad that nice tiny program that tells you just about what you can buy in 'hysterical' values? Surf up there and look. Links to those sites can easily found by looking their posts. mosh "Sleeps with the spwaw"

Wild Bill -> (3/2/2001 4:19:00 AM)
It takes some time and research, Resisti. Here are a few sites to get you started. http://155.217.58.58/atdls.htm http://www.feldgrau.com/ http://perso.infonie.fr/enpointe/ http://www.nauticom.net/www/harts/army.html http://www.britwar.co.uk/lists/index.htm Check your library for books in military history on this subject. I hope someday someone will do just that, prepare us an adequate selection of units that is fair and historical. Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

David boutwell -> (3/2/2001 7:29:00 AM)
Gentlemen, So, what do you prefer? Custom scenarios that , because they are accurate historically, are not shoot 'em up tankfests...or shoot 'em up tankfests? I have an Arnhem scenario that I could be about 4 or 5 hours away from posting. It uses the largest map possible, and uses all possible units on both sides, and they are, for the most part historical oob's. Trouble is, I asked some guys (several of whom just happened to be tank, artillery and air happy) to play test it, and they complained that there weren't enough "glamour weapons" to put it in a nutshell. Arnhem was for the most part, a grueling, house-to-house infantry, which, if you are not a historian, is not interesting. Pretty much turned me off, no pissed me off.... It seemed that several of them knew nothing of the details of the battle. They seemed to approach the scenario, which took me over 100 hours, at the minimum, to research and create, not with an appreciation of what it was trying to recreate, but with a critical eye for what it didn't have, that they wanted! Kind of turned me off to scenario design for the purpose of posting...If there was no one out there that appreciated a historical scenario for what it was, as opposed to what it wasn't, then what's the point. The predominant flavor of many forum threads have seemed, to me, to lean toward the "non-historical", and, instead, have seemed to focus on things like winning campaigns with whatever it takes to win them (kind of the way my high school students approach games). I like warhorse's perspective. Where are the scenarios that are darn near unwinnable by one side or another, but are historically accurate and educational to play? (Dunkirk, Calais, France 1940, the low countries) There are plenty of scenarios based on Tigers, guys. Let's have some diversity. So...I am very refreshed by this thread. It makes me feel better to see that many of the "old veterans" still have that vision of recreating history, not running up kills. I still think we need a historical scenario "room", or whatever, where us "purists" can exchange ideas. That's my two cents, for what it's worth. Dave Boutwell

victorhauser -> (3/2/2001 11:10:00 AM)
Well... I'm an "old veteran". I respect the opinions in this thread. But... I ALWAYS play to win. Even when playing with mutually agreed limits or with "historical" forces. The debate about "gaming vs. historical" play has been going on for decades, long before Steel Panthers. In real war, the soldiers are not looking to be "historical". They are looking to win (and live) by ANY means possible. I've spent much of my wargaming career (33 years) playing against individuals who are cheerful and sociable and friendly--and absolutely cutthroat ruthless gamers. I've learned that one person's "historical" is another person's "gamey behavior". And since I cannot know that beforehand, no matter what words are spoken ahead of time, it is safer to assume that even if a player believes HE is an "historical" player, there is no guarantee that I will believe what he believes. So, I will ALWAYS choose the most brutally efficient combat force that the game will allow me to if I have the option to do so. And here is another thought. Even when using "historical" forces, do we not as players use every means at our disposal to win any way we legally can? I loathe cheaters and will not tolerate them, but, short of cheating I expect my opponent to try his very best, using whatever resources he can muster, to win. So, to me, it still comes down to winning. Whether I win with an "historical" force (even though I have no clear idea how that word is defined) or with an "ahistorical brutally efficient" combat force, it is still a game. And since the game we are playing here models real combat (the most absolute form of competition I know of), I have no problem with SPWaW players who use their competitive instincts to the best of their ability using whatever means at their disposal (besides cheating).

victorhauser -> (3/2/2001 11:48:00 AM)
It just occurred to me that if the points costs of the units were 100% balanced then we would likely not be having this debate. Please do not misunderstand me. I believe that the Matrix team has done a superior job in pricing units. But I'm sure they would agree that the pricing lists aren't perfect. Players always seek to find the best bargain for the available points. So part of the problem with discussions about "gamey behavior" concerns the question: Why are players buying and using the units they do? The answer is because they are the most cost-effective in game terms (I used the term "brutally efficient" in an above post). Unfortunately, simply changing the costs of the most frequently "abused" (at least according to the "historical purists" out there) unit types will not necessarily solve the problem. Instead it will likely create a new list of cost-effective units which will in turn be "abused". And on and on. Such is the nature of the game. It is just a game after all. I'm certainly in favor of refining unit prices to as close as perfect as we can, but I also realize that doing so is a very difficult and time-consuming process. I salute the Matrix staff in their ongoing efforts.

Reg -> (3/2/2001 1:26:00 PM)
Why does this thread sound all too familiar??? Maybe because we've been through all this before on the Combat Command board. http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/Forum17/HTML/000147.html http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/Forum17/HTML/000154.html You gotta love Captn_Jack's original submission. Reg.

MaxGross -> (3/2/2001 1:54:00 PM)
Well, I may as well throw my two cents in as well. I believe in freedom of choice. I prefer AI play. I believe I am adult enough to pick and choose my units and create my own scenario's, as well as play historic ones. Yes, sometimes its fun to stack it against the AI and blast him off the board, especially after a stressful day. And I am sure everyone can relate to that. It's not something I do very often, but It's my choice, and I don't think I, or anyone else should be penalized by limitations of percentages, higher costs, or whatever folks have mentioned in these posts. I believe most of the time we all play according to the rules of reasonable play. I might remind you that in the Gulf war (only as an example of bombing into the stone age) we reduced the Iraqi army's armor by nearly 50% through air supremacy, and interdiction. Then mauled them on the field. If we can do it in real war, we can do it in a game. It's historical right? OK, I understand, it's the self satisfaction of maneuvering on the field with as much realism as possible, fine, no argument there. Having been there, I can tell you by personal experience if you can get it you always went with 8" or 175mm, or a B52 strike to blast the the little buggers to the happy hunting ground. Excessive force? Maybe but in war who cares. I only wish we had had MLRS in those days. Now if you want to do historic things imagine if the Germans had moved their forces in Dec '44 to the east instead of the west. Or what if they moved their forces out of Italy up through eastern Europe to flank the Russians instead of trying to hang on to Italy. There are a thousand "what If's" but the point is you can do both. Again It's freedom of choice. To each his own. I think, as someone else posted, it would be a shame to make any limitations on the existing setup. So I guess that was my point.

Wild Bill -> (3/2/2001 2:17:00 PM)
The content of these varying points of view prove one salient point. There are all types of gamers out there and all have their preferences. As stated, mine leans toward the historical. Others prefer the other approach, to a more Gaming type of battle. Can I pick better units than my opponent, or the right ones to counter what he is picking? That can be pretty exciting too. All of this of course is possible due to the versatility of the SP game. You can have one or both. David B, I learned long ago that you cannot let yourself be swayed by the opinions of a few. Listen to your testers, but remember, there is a group of die hard historians who want to play your Arnhem. It's a good scenario, superb map, and I hope you will continue to do those you enjoy. If you do, you will have fellow gamers that will play your scenarios and enjoy them. Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games [This message has been edited by Wild Bill (edited March 02, 2001).]

Redleg -> (3/2/2001 2:32:00 PM)
I think the problem lies in expectations not being stated beforehand. Pure and simple. Another problem lies in definitions. A lot of "history" guys I play use fleets of Tigers, SS, engr battalions... that seems to be their definition of history. A good battle proposal should include some guidelines about "history". Pure and simple. But that seldom happens. Nothing is usually said by the "history" guys unless they lose. Then, after the fact, "history" comes up. Having played hundreds of pbem battles, I think I have seen every trick dreamed up by pbem players. I seldom see new ones anymore. My favorite approach is to issue a challenge such as: "I propose German - Soviet June, 1943 4,000 points each. All settings and map default except 0 air units and a limit of 1 battalion of off-board artillery each. No on-board artillery that is not part of an infantry unit. Limit of 50 landmines/obstacles. You can choose the sides!" The last part is the key. I am the only player I have ever seen to issue such a challenge! I try to never issue a challenge that I wouldn't play either side in. The last part of my challenge is something like this: "If you don't like my proposal, please offer your ideas". I have seen people sneak custom OOBs, custom maps, pick a certain month when things happen in either OOBs or maps. Disappear when when things go badly, try to mess with visibility settings, etc. All in the name of "history" and never mentioned beforehand. But every now and then, there is some super pbem gaming that makes it all worth while. So, I periodically play anyone who wants to play. But please, if you have some sort of idea about "history", say so up front - not later. I have seen some strange "history" in pbem battles. There is so much of this that unless I know the guy, I always generate a sample battle that someone proposes to look for the reason the guy wants that particular country in that particular month/year. Once the ground rules are established,I play to win within those guidelines. Period.

Reg -> (3/2/2001 8:33:00 PM)
The Games Network guys used to organise leagues using specially designed scenarios that nobody had seen before. I wonder if that could be an avenue to prevent Civil War (and keep Wild Bill in a job)?? Reg.

DELTA32 -> (3/2/2001 9:49:00 PM)
WB.......... I played board wargames for over 30 years. As anyone knows...the designers always established the rules to best reflect the historcal circumstances of the battle being depicted. Of course, one's interpretation is always subject to scrutiny. Often we added, deleted or modified rules in games we truly enjoyed. The problem with PBEM point selected forces is that many of the players of SPWAW have NO clue of WW II ground combat history at the tactical or opertaional level (any level for that matter). They probably know the NFL's rulebook in and out but God forbid they know any history. The problem I have with PBEM League Challenges is that I don't know who I'm challenging if it is a new opponent. I don't know if he is a follower of historical gaming or one who likes to have "FUN" picking the best there is and bastardizing his Tables of Organization. This I blame on MATRIX' manner of allowing one to buy "anything". Basically......a 4 - 6,000 point game is only going to allow for a Battalion level game. What I believe should be done in 5.0 is to prevent players from buying individual platoons. Rather, points should be used to buy Battalion level units..and those attachments you would receive from Regiment or Division...i.e., Scouts, AT assets, dedicated artillery assigned to YOUR sector, etc. A continuing problem with PBEM challenges is that challenging one you do not know is also tricky. I hate to waste the time challenging, waiting for a reply, then having to find out if my potential opponent is a wargamer or some idiot living in fantasy land ! I use the PBEM program, Scott Grasse's SP Guidelines program, and have to go through all kinds of crap to find out what each listed opponent uses. I believe it's time to provide a gaming profile for League opponents registry...because I really don't want to have to deliberate with some guy who likes to have "FUN" picking the best of everything his points will buy......history be damned ! Anyway....my 2 cents.....for what it is worth. Delta 32

Charles22 -> (3/2/2001 10:44:00 PM)
Since we got on the subject of V.5, I have one vital question, which I believe I've posed before, and that is if the WWII and generated campaigns will implement the possibility of WIDER maps? I know to expect this somewhat with the mega-campaign since they essentially are stringed scenarios, but what about the regular campaigns? It seems noone has ever commented on that this will never be done, or has been considered, or if it's so many versions down the road. Thanks.

Wild Bill -> (3/3/2001 5:13:00 AM)
You'll see a lot of great things in 5.0, but you won't see wider maps. That is a change that would involve many, many hours of coding work. It is something that I too would like, but I have to understand and accept the fact that Matrix programmers have to get to work on other projects. After 19 months of work (can you believe that!) on SPWAW, we have to move on or move out. That is an alternative that we do not want to face. So perhaps one day...but not in 5.0, I fear. Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

David boutwell -> (3/3/2001 7:25:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by Wild Bill: David B, I learned long ago that you cannot let yourself be swayed by the opinions of a few. Listen to your testers, but remember, there is a group of die hard historians who want to play your Arnhem. It's a good scenario, superb map, and I hope you will continue to do those you enjoy. If you do, you will have fellow gamers that will play your scenarios and enjoy them. Wild Bill [/B] Bill, Don't worry. It's gonna get posted. I got slightly sidetracked when I found Osprey Publications' Campaign Series OOB's for the Central Sector of the Ardennes campaign. The U.S. and German volumes have excellent small scale topographic maps of all of the engagements around Bastogne. I've always been fascinated by the battles conducted by the different armor task forces and the 101st Airborne Division to the east of Bastogne, as well as Champs/Longchamps. I just had to create some nice maps for the different battles. I plan to post them as a set soon. They will include the terrain around Marvie, Wardin, Noville, Longvilly, Neffe, Magerey and other villages. I used Fred Chlanda's WAW MAP to "cut and paste". These maps are interlinked (meaning, for example, the village of Wardin appears in several different maps, and the village is identical in each map.) If all of them were layed on a table and overlapped, they would make one HUGE map! Anyway. I needed a break from Arnhem. I can get myself so immersed in big projects that, occasionally, I burn out before I finish, and have to come back to it. All I need to do to "version 2" (post play-tested) of my Arnhem scenario is modify the command and rally ratings of all of the units. I didn't get to this before I submitted verion 1 for playtesting. From what guys who have a knowledge of the battle say after they have playtested the scenario, it is all that I intended it to be, so verion 2 should be even better! I appreciate your support, Bill. Dave Boutwell

Wild Bill -> (3/3/2001 8:06:00 AM)
Sounds like some great stuff, Dave. Bring it on. And you'll have to give me a tutorial on that map editor. I love it, but can't make it work. Good luck with the Bugle (Battle of, that is! [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] )! ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

Charles22 -> (3/3/2001 9:01:00 AM)
Thanks Wild Bill, it's good to at least have it shot down, though before I read this I submitted lack of wider campaign maps as my idea of shortcoming number one for V.5.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.828125