(Full Version)

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



Message

Paul Vebber -> (7/5/2001 8:22:00 PM)

Excellent input guys, My personal philosphy is that from everything I've read, real troops did not have the blood lust to wipe out retreating units that the player has and typically focused on more pressing threats than retreating units. So troops firing on retreating units don;t have their hearts in it (half firepower) and if the retreating unit passes a morale check when it happens, they go to pinned (a seemingly natural occurance, if you compose yourself for a moment running through a hail of bullets on your tail you will stop running and hit the dirt so as not to get killed). I don;t want to change the "dfault" behavior of entrenched units until i here back form the Raiders and MC designers on how 6.0 is fairing with their work, but I thnk tweaking the HQ tents (I am experimenting with making command bunkers unit class 40 so they give this effect). The idea of HQ tents was to represent the extra comms gear, command attention and general morale boost that "a crtical sector defense" or "hold at all cost" sort of thing provided in a specific locality. Not simply a higher HQ - but the designation of an area by the HQ is vital. And in a way that it can "be bought" or assigned to an area by the player/ scenario designer. Keep playing and letting us know!



gators -> (7/5/2001 9:56:00 PM)

I really enjoy 6.0. I think there's a good balance between realism and playability. I just fnished shooting a Canadian assault to pieces, even though I forgot to buy AA, and got pasted by Mosquitoes on a couple of turns. MG42s really chopped up infantry moving in the open just as they really did on several occaisons. I only had a platoon of Jgpz IV/48s, but my PAK 75s were very effective except for a bothersome Firefly. No infantry closed to within 4 hexes. Did I say I like 6.0 yet?



Larry Holt -> (7/5/2001 10:24:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: Excellent input guys, My personal philosphy is that from everything I've read, real troops did not have the blood lust to wipe out retreating units that the player has and typically focused on more pressing threats than retreating units. So troops firing on retreating units don;t have their hearts in it (half firepower) and if the retreating unit passes a morale check when it happens, they go to pinned (a seemingly natural occurance, if you compose yourself for a moment running through a hail of bullets on your tail you will stop running and hit the dirt so as not to get killed). I don;t want to change the "dfault" behavior of entrenched units until i here back form the Raiders and MC designers on how 6.0 is fairing with their work, but I thnk tweaking the HQ tents (I am experimenting with making command bunkers unit class 40 so they give this effect). The idea of HQ tents was to represent the extra comms gear, command attention and general morale boost that "a crtical sector defense" or "hold at all cost" sort of thing provided in a specific locality. Not simply a higher HQ - but the designation of an area by the HQ is vital. And in a way that it can "be bought" or assigned to an area by the player/ scenario designer. Keep playing and letting us know!



RockinHarry -> (7/5/2001 10:33:00 PM)

Not played V6.0 yet ... hope I´m not getting disappointed as I love 5.3. I´ll see... Something for next patch or CL maybe: Please remove my two favourite cheats (bugs) from game. 1. Shooting with area fire (Z) at own retreating/routing troops to change their status back to pinned/buttoned. :D 2. Bail out voluntarily smokeless vehicles with "9" key in hazardous situations to lay some nice smoke just with the crews! :D :eek: BTW: Don´t want to start the "Swamps not swamps" thing again... ;) ________ Harry



Jasper -> (7/5/2001 10:36:00 PM)

And Pleassssssssssseeeeee add that key to able and disable the main gun.....my hand is tried on and off the main gun from the unit status screen.......Please Please Please :D



Banjo -> (7/6/2001 1:00:00 AM)

I can't say it enough, but thank you all again. The game keeps getting better all of the time. One thing that I havn't seen a whole lot of discussion on though is the max length of scenarios. I know this is 60 turns presently. At one minute per turn, correct me if I am wrong please, gives us an hour long scenario. Since I think you are looking for Ideas for CL, I think the max game length should be possibly days instead of an hour or three in CL. If you are still planning on using an 800*800 hex mapboard, this works out to a 11.36 square mile map. A lot of action can take place in that amount of area. Some actions lasted weeks in areas that size. A single scenario of 100+ turns could become quite tedious, and dull. Especially when it comes to moving units and formations into position that might not engage for hours. How to simulate that? A possible solution could be to have the scenario length be playable in 20, 30 or 60 one minute length turns. Since it could be possible to manuever an almost division size force in that space, things could get boring. Since you may only have several companies in action at any given moment the rest of your force could be handled by the computer. How to do it? Here are a few thoughts. Have the battle to be fought broken up into 20 to 30 turn phases. At the begining of the battle, give each side X number of activation points. For each formation to advance or attack, they expend X number of points. Since it takes more fuel, ammo... supplies if you will to run an armored company as to an infatry company, the armor company needs to expend more points. This handles your supply and logistical problems. Units and formations behind the lines are out of supply, unless accompanied by supply vehicles. This could lead to ammo and fuel shortages. I will use the term formation to represent a company, although this could be a section platoon. A formation that is scheduled to advance, sets it's objective at the begining of the phase. When the objective is met, it reverts to a defensive posture and the formation is given a movemnt range of X number of hexes surrounding the objective in order to regroup, mop up, and set up a defensive perimeter or deploy for the next phases activities. A formation that is not activated, would automatically have it's posture set as defensive, and could move within X number of hexex from it's leaders location. C.P. if you will. Defensive fire could be handled by op human op fire or set to computer op fire at the players option. A formations could have a retreat hex to serve as a rallying point on the map if it needs to fall back due to casualties or to preserve it's integrity. This would be the units starting point if set to advance. A unit in advance mode might wind up in a meeting engagement or an assault or just an advance. One might not know. This gives the 20 to 30 turn phases their flavor. One phase leads to another depending on the outcome of the previous phase. The map would need to remain the same at the begining of the phase as it was at the end of the previous one. Burning terrain continues to burn, rubble and shell holes remain. Burning building terrain and wrecks have a limited length of time in which they can burn, creating a new class of terrain. Burned out. Burning terrain could burn into the night creating illuminated hexes, for those who have mentioned the need for illumination at night. Troops and engineers could dig entrenchments, lay or remove wire and minefields... in the phases, giving more depth to the game. Formations that need to move behind the lines, could be handled by the computer to cut down on the amount of time spent moving units by the player during play. This cuts down on pre-game deployments. I think you get the drift. So a battle becomes a series of phases which can be played in a relatively short time, and give the greatest depth to Tactical thinking yet. A campaighn, could be a series of battles. The designers would be in for a tremendous challenge. PBEM may be the best way to play this way. These are just a few ideas that have been at the back of my mind for quite a while going back to my ASL days. I was just curious to see what everyones opinion is, and if this could be feasable for CL, or another game in the future. I'm ready to pre order CL even now if possible regardless of how it comes out. Thanks again, for a great game. And thanks to all of the folks whose input in this forum who have helped me out here, directly or indirectly.



A_B -> (7/6/2001 1:35:00 AM)

This sounds pretty much like CC4 and CC5, except you didn't have to use points, you just moved. Of course, the CC games were on a much smaller scale that SPWaW, but still a lot of fun. If you're not familiar with the CC series, you should give it a try.



Banjo -> (7/6/2001 5:07:00 AM)

A_B, I havn't been able to check out the CC series yet. Since I started playing SPWAW, my East and West Front have been sitting idle on my shelf. I'd hate to do the same with CC. Will have to check out their related sites online first. From what I have seen, I'll stick with Matrix for the rest of my wargaming needs! Except of course for flight sims.



A_B -> (7/6/2001 5:38:00 AM)

[/QUOTE] A_B, I havn't been able to check out the CC series yet. Since I started playing SPWAW, my East and West Front have been sitting idle on my shelf. I'd hate to do the same with CC. Will have to check out their related sites online first. From what I have seen, I'll stick with Matrix for the rest of my wargaming needs! Except of course for flight sims. [QUOTE] CC is a good series - especially against another person where the real-time format is a lot quicker paced than i-go-u-go. I mentioned it because it handles the operatonal/tactical movement similar to the way you described, although in a pretty simplistic way. I'm pretty sure that Matrix's new game 'Close Assault' is taking over where CC left off, and from reading the close assault website, there will be a operational/strategeic movement phase.



Nikademus -> (7/6/2001 5:51:00 AM)

Liking what i see so far! Boy those SMG's and LMG/HMGs are deadly if your troops are caught out in the open and/or moving. Yikes Unfortunately my 6.0 experience was dampened somewhat by my having chosen a EBW scenerio to play first (you'd think i'd know better!) A nice UK vs Italian battle in 41, "Just in Time" Thinking i'd have a hefty experience advantage i wadded in with a swagger that Monty himself would have approved of. After i extracted myself from my burning tank and beat out the flames raging on my cloths and hair, i gave it try number two. This time abandoning all subtlty and fancy moves and concentrating my forces! This time i had a devil of a time pulling that gear mechanism out of my forhead as well as beating out the flames currently marring my otherwise smashing outfit. Definately time to regroup for try #3. Only this time i conducted a Commando cyber raid and checked out the opposing side's forces before beginning my advance. Only to find these Italians were not only veterans but outnumbered me 3 to 1 in tanks. Yikes. Bill, your a devil. Churchill is not going to be happy with me. :rolleyes: They say Napoleaon had days like this :D



Nikademus -> (7/6/2001 5:54:00 AM)

oh one thing i noticed that was markedly different from 5.1 - 5.3, the small shell syndrome seems to have returned, at least for the 2pdr. Fairly consistantly i was hitting Italian tanks and AC's only to have my rounds do little to no damage to the tank. A couple took almost a dozen hits before being destroyed! sadly, i could'nt say the same thing for the Italian's popguns.



panda124c -> (7/6/2001 7:15:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: Excellent input guys, My personal philosphy is that from everything I've read, real troops did not have the blood lust to wipe out retreating units that the player has and typically focused on more pressing threats than retreating units. So troops firing on retreating units don;t have their hearts in it (half firepower) and if the retreating unit passes a morale check when it happens, they go to pinned (a seemingly natural occurance, if you compose yourself for a moment running through a hail of bullets on your tail you will stop running and hit the dirt so as not to get killed).
By the same token troops would not 'normally' suddenly go from 'routed' to cover and returning fire (pinned). More likey they would go to ground being harder to hit and keep moving away.
quote:

I don;t want to change the "dfault" behavior of entrenched units until i here back form the Raiders and MC designers on how 6.0 is fairing with their work, but I thnk tweaking the HQ tents (I am experimenting with making command bunkers unit class 40 so they give this effect). [/QB]
With the change in the amount of suppression caused by units, a unit in cover will recieve a much higher level of suppression in one turn than in previous versions thus causing it to break and run sooner. A better solution would be to make suppressing harder to achive against troops in good cover, buildings, woods, entrenchments, etc. It is very easy to cause enough suppression in one turn to drive a unit out of defensive terrian. Much too easy IMHO. Keep up the good work guy, you're doing a great job. IMNSHO (In My Not So Humble Opinion) :D



panda124c -> (7/6/2001 7:41:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Lars Remmen: MMG's and HMG's quite hopeless?!? Tell that to my poor British troops slugging it out with the Italians. 8mm Breda HMG One shot -> 5 casualties :mad: . 13.2mm HMG three shots -> 10 man unit gone :( . I think the crew served MG's are now killers they should be.
Oh don't knock the Italians they have some of the heavist MG in the game now. Each Italian Line Inf has two 6.5mm MGs. Before the LMG was a seperate unit. And the .50 Cal has got nothing on those 13.2mm M31s they eat HT, AC, and Lt Tanks. Use Matilda's lots of them. On a more general MG observation. There are wide variations in the OOBs concerning MMGs and HMGs. HMGs should have a larger crew than the MMG, should be slower (unable to keep up with a squad), should have a higher rate of fire, better Fire Control, Range Finder, more ammo and of course higher cost. The American and the Italian MMG/HMGs are about right except the crews are the same size. The German MMG/HMG are way off, same number of men, same speed. With no difference in these units everyone buys HMGs. Why not there is no Commander telling you to stick to your TO&E. [ July 05, 2001: Message edited by: pbear ]



Phil -> (7/6/2001 9:11:00 AM)

quote:

oh one thing i noticed that was markedly different from 5.1 - 5.3, the small shell syndrome seems to have returned, at least for the 2pdr. Fairly consistantly i was hitting Italian tanks and AC's only to have my rounds do little to no damage to the tank. A couple took almost a dozen hits before being destroyed!
Nikademas, I encountered the same thing. It was quite frustating. After reading all this praise for 6.0 I can't help if I'm doing something wrong. Can I ask, are the settings in the prefrences tweaked any, or is everything at the default?



Paul Vebber -> (7/6/2001 8:12:00 PM)

There are 2 2lber guns in teh game an early one with uncapped AP that was reknowed as horrible. It was particularly impotant agains German face hardened armor, so it is generally emasculated. We will be able to better show the pros and conns of this sort of ammo in Combat Leader. SO for now the early 2lber is short changed against some targets so it doesn't overperform against its common nemesis in the mid Pz III series. Later they added capped AP which was passible - much better against the face hardened German armors. Also small caliber ammo will tend to damage vehicels and not brew them up as often. IF you keep firing until it "blows up" that can take a lot of shots, but you are shooting at a scrap heap typically before you get to that point...



Grumble -> (7/6/2001 10:05:00 PM)

quote:

The German MMG/HMG are way off, same number of men, same speed. With no difference in these units everyone buys HMGs.
Dunno about this. The Germans themselves had no distinction between "medium" and "heavy" MGs as it was the same weapon. The only differences would be optical sights, and more ammunition ("both" used the same tripod mount). In my sources/interviews I haven't encountered any more crew members being mentioned for crews in certain situations.



Nikademus -> (7/7/2001 12:41:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Phil: Nikademas, I encountered the same thing. It was quite frustating. After reading all this praise for 6.0 I can't help if I'm doing something wrong. Can I ask, are the settings in the prefrences tweaked any, or is everything at the default?
No tweaks, all settings in the Preferences were at norm (100%) Paul; yes i realize the two pounder (solid shot) became totally inadequate against uparmored targets such as the Pz-IIIh. But here it was'nt a matter of non-penetration. The shells were getting through but were making little impression. I realize the small size would make a brew up less than likely vs larger caliber weapons (including possibly the 45mm of the Italian which was doing just fine, no change from 5.3) It was just that it was SUCH a marked difference from 5.3 to 6.0 as i was playing the same scenerio, then upgraded to 6.0 and started over and bam!!! suddenly the two pounder was very noticably more ineffective in causing damage when penetrating than in 5.3 so i was wondering if that old problem a few versions back had re-reared its head again.



Paul Vebber -> (7/7/2001 1:02:00 AM)

I just tried a "shooting gallery" of Crusader I's against M13/40 s and they seemed to do aOK at 500-600 yards. THe poor Crusaders are tin cans armor wise, so it can be frustrating. The only change was a slight tweak that rasied the effect of slope on armor thicknes for lower angles, but lowered ricochet chance and effective thickness at high angles. What ranges are you shooting at?



panda124c -> (7/7/2001 2:50:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Grumble: Dunno about this. The Germans themselves had no distinction between "medium" and "heavy" MGs as it was the same weapon. The only differences would be optical sights, and more ammunition ("both" used the same tripod mount). In my sources/interviews I haven't encountered any more crew members being mentioned for crews in certain situations.
I may be wrong, I thought that the German MMG was the MG34/42 on a tripod with a four or five man crew and the HMG was on a quad mount with micometer adjustments and longer range sighting equipment and a seven man crew. The reason for the increased crew is to carry the larger mount and the extra ammo. :confused:



gdpsnake -> (7/7/2001 3:04:00 AM)

6.0 really works well. Great job. The rifles, MG's, etc. seem to be doing what I would call historically accurate results. I have one request. Please look at the AI's unit chosing. I'm playing a WW2 campaign. My first battle was an assault against the Polish forces. The Polish 'buy' was unusual to say the least. I suppose I attacked the 'factory' in Poland where they made the Wz.30 HMG! The AI chose 156 units. 70 of them were those HMG'S!!!!! They also chose 4 AAMG versions. The rest of the buy was 11 37mm ATG's, 6 75mm fg's, 18 bunkers, mines, 9 AT rifles, 6 46mm GLs', and 12 Gun support squads. That left just 10 rifle squads, and 9 HQ platoon squads of men to cover the defense. A bit strange. No hurry but the next upgrade request would be to tweak the AI purchase routine if possible. But don't waste a lot of brain cells, I'd rather see the new games get worked.



Greenlake -> (7/7/2001 3:53:00 AM)

6.0 is great except one little thing, Flamethrowers are now completly useless from my observations. They use to be major killers of infrantry and now they never get kills. I know the direction 6.0 was going was to Melee/Overrun combat, but I have tried many many times to get a kill with a flame a never can.



BlitzSS -> (7/7/2001 4:41:00 AM)

I’m not sure what you mean David when you say, “Crews do not seem to act the way they should.” I’ll try to echo that thought the next time I’ve got crews on the screen. Otherwise, I didn’t get a chance to play versions 5.2 and 5.3, but I read many reactions. I did manage to play one scenario in 6.0; a small US vs Ger in a meeting engagement in some small town. It was of mostly infantry units and it seemed to play rather well. I noticed that the BARs and LMGs fired 1st with some rifle fire during each firing segment. Advancing infantry through a town with minimal artillery and armor seemed a to be great test, now I wonder what I missed in 5.3. The mechanics of the infantry fire seem to work well, but killing squads and MG crews didn’t strike me as any what too difficult at all. This was a canned scenario and it played through well. I hope before the weekend is over check out 6.0 some more. I want realism and to be taxed, but I also when I play I want to enjoy just a game. [ July 06, 2001: Message edited by: BlitzSS ]



Nikademus -> (7/7/2001 4:53:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: I just tried a "shooting gallery" of Crusader I's against M13/40 s and they seemed to do aOK at 500-600 yards. THe poor Crusaders are tin cans armor wise, so it can be frustrating. The only change was a slight tweak that rasied the effect of slope on armor thicknes for lower angles, but lowered ricochet chance and effective thickness at high angles. What ranges are you shooting at?
Against the M-13's, 600 - 900 yards. (and yeah, they had to be side shots mostly....heh, that damn front turret armor was nigh invulnerable!!! got a few forward hull penetrations though.) Against the armored cars the range was 50 - 150 yards.



David Heath -> (7/7/2001 5:49:00 AM)

Hi Guys We are fixing the internet play and a few little things. One being the flamethrower.... gotto have that working.... expect v6.1 soon.



Panzer Leo -> (7/7/2001 5:57:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by pbear: I may be wrong, I thought that the German MMG was the MG34/42 on a tripod with a four or five man crew and the HMG was on a quad mount with micometer adjustments and longer range sighting equipment and a seven man crew. The reason for the increased crew is to carry the larger mount and the extra ammo. :confused:
There was no MMG or HMG version of MG 34/42, just the MG34/42 on the tripod (Lafette). The optics were part of the tripod and were always with the weapon(unless broken, of course). Usually a whole squad (7-9 men) were attached to this MG, being responsible for manning the weapon (2-3), ensuring ammo supply (eats up ammo like hell) and giving fire support at close ranges, to defend the MG (and a NCO typically with binoculars for directing the fire). This is the "training optimum". In combat the additional crew often was withdrawn to help out with other tasks (regular infantry) and the minimum needed to man the MG was left (3-4 men).



George Marker -> (7/7/2001 7:06:00 AM)

I have tried downloading the file on two different occassions, each time when I go to unzip the file, I receive an error message stating that there is no zip file to unzip. I going to try one more time late this evening and hopefully, I will be more successful. ;) :( :o :D ;) :mad: :confused:



Paul Vebber -> (7/7/2001 7:29:00 AM)

WHich file - if you have ICQ I can file transfer you the exe directly. ICQ 2243790



ToutUnHomme -> (7/7/2001 9:18:00 PM)

Hi guys, Great job on that version. I'm a new registered user but I am following the discussions on this forum since I have started to play on version 4.0 of SPWAW. (I'm a happy guy since my spouse is a computer abdic too :D ) Two things that I want to talk about: 1- I have still noticed the problem that you lose the first spot of artillery if you have more than one mortar in a platoon and you activate both in the same turn. 2- It would be great and more realistic if we could fire with AT shells at abandonned vehicules. I can understand that regular infanterie could have to destroy it in the same hex but that should be even easier (just a sitting duck) for an armor like a Tiger... It would at least remove the fear to get shot when the crew get back and reuse the vehicule. Thanks!



Alexandra -> (7/8/2001 9:43:00 PM)

2- It would be great and more realistic if we could fire with AT shells at abandonned vehicules. I can understand that regular infanterie could have to destroy it in the same hex but that should be even easier (just a sitting duck) for an armor like a Tiger... It would at least remove the fear to get shot when the crew get back and reuse the vehicule. No need for that. Park a squad in the same hex as an abandoned vehicle and they'll destroy it before your next turn. They have to end the turn in the hex with the vehicle, and the icon won't explode, but if you put the mouse over it it'll show the tank or whatever's destroyed. Alex Thanks![/QB][/QUOTE]



A_B -> (7/8/2001 10:03:00 PM)

What about getting some improved weather routines in SPWaW? Currently, the wheather only affect Visability (number of hexes you can see). It does not affect the spotting ability. For example, it is as easy to 'see' enemy Inf. 4 hexes away at night in a sandstorm as on a sunny day (according to testing i did - V6.0). This can be handled with preference changes, but shouldn't the game provide more realistic weather effects? IF not SPWaW, how about CL/CA?



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1