Hey Gunny... (Full Version)

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



Message


Orzel Bialy -> Hey Gunny... (4/16/2004 4:49:37 PM)

Sorry to start another thread about this...but since I (and other people) are still "idling" in neutral rather than making new scenarios:

Has there been any word on the OoB's and their release? I know the idea is to have it launch with the posting of the "Generals Edition" Download...but any intel report on a possible timeframe would be appreciated. [;)]




rich12545 -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/16/2004 4:57:27 PM)

What the heck is the "General's Edition?"




Jim1954 -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/16/2004 5:02:19 PM)

General's Edition is a CD containing ALL of the MC's in one package at one price.




KG Erwin -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/16/2004 6:43:38 PM)

Orzel, everything is on track for a release by the end of the month, but I can't give an exact date. There's a few more tweaks being done, and, as everyone should know, the Generals' Edition will include the complete 8.2 version of SPWaW.




Jim1954 -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/16/2004 8:37:55 PM)

i knew that [X(]




DoubleDeuce -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/16/2004 10:12:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Orzel, everything is on track for a release by the end of the month, but I can't give an exact date.

Would this be the the last day of the month, last week of the month? What day of the month would be considered as falling into the area of "by the end of the month"?

Well, we all know it was gonna be asked at some point [:D] Just dispensing with the formalities.




Orzel Bialy -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/16/2004 10:46:19 PM)

Thanks for the update Gunny. Guess I'll just continue working on my banner graphics until they are released for DL'ing. [8D]




KG Erwin -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/17/2004 12:06:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Double Deuce

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Orzel, everything is on track for a release by the end of the month, but I can't give an exact date.

Would this be the the last day of the month, last week of the month? What day of the month would be considered as falling into the area of "by the end of the month"?

Well, we all know it was gonna be asked at some point [:D] Just dispensing with the formalities.


Well, since you asked, DD, let me indulge in some politician-style expansion of my statement:" the day of the end of the month depends on whether said month has 28, 29, 30 or 31 days in it. Now, my prior statement did not specify the month or indeed the year I was referring to. I could have also been referring to an event in the past or future perfect sense, as in 'it may have been' or 'will have been' done barring any unforeseen circumstances. I can't be any more clear than that. Next question?" [;)]




Ol_Dog -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/17/2004 1:25:31 AM)

Sir - what is the defination of "is" ?
[8D]




John David -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/17/2004 6:22:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Double Deuce

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Orzel, everything is on track for a release by the end of the month, but I can't give an exact date.

Would this be the the last day of the month, last week of the month? What day of the month would be considered as falling into the area of "by the end of the month"?

Well, we all know it was gonna be asked at some point [:D] Just dispensing with the formalities.


Well, since you asked, DD, let me indulge in some politician-style expansion of my statement:" the day of the end of the month depends on whether said month has 28, 29, 30 or 31 days in it. Now, my prior statement did not specify the month or indeed the year I was referring to. I could have also been referring to an event in the past or future perfect sense, as in 'it may have been' or 'will have been' done barring any unforeseen circumstances. I can't be any more clear than that. Next question?" [;)]


Ol_Dog sorta beat me to it but....

It depends on what your definition of "Month" is![8|]

JD




KG Erwin -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/17/2004 7:00:58 AM)

Alright, here's the real scoop: barring any unforeseen problems, the patch will be available before the end of this month (April 2004). As soon as the official notice is given, I'll let you guys know.
As a spoiler, I can let you know that 8.2 has an updated mech.exe. This incorporates some changes in the AI force selection routines, but that's about it.
As a member of the 8.2 OOB update team, I have the final patch in hand. I love it. You guys should be happy with the adjustments that were made, and with the wholesale overhaul of certain OOBs.
As a disclaimer, right now I will say that not all of the suggested changes in the OOB thread were implemented. I anticipate some complaints, but that's to be expected.
However, I request that comments be made in the "new improved 8.1 OOB" thread, which I will rename once 8.2 is released.
Any questions regarding changes should be directed to that thread.
With regards to all,
Gunny




DoubleDeuce -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/17/2004 4:04:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Alright, here's the real scoop: barring any unforeseen problems, the patch will be available before the end of this month (April 2004). As soon as the official notice is given, I'll let you guys know.

[:D] I'll be waiting with bells on ! ! (OK, all you pervs keeps your comments to yourselves [:-] )




Goblin -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/18/2004 1:19:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Double Deuce
I'll be waiting with bells on ! !


[X(][X(][X(]


Goblin[:'(]




KG Erwin -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/18/2004 1:42:43 AM)

Bells? Double Ds? I'm thinking of some other sites I could visit--uh, I need to go to the restroom. [X(] Later, guys--(drinking moderator alert) [sm=party-smiley-012.gif]




Warrior2 -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/18/2004 2:28:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Alright, here's the real scoop: barring any unforeseen problems, the patch will be available before the end of this month (April 2004). As soon as the official notice is given, I'll let you guys know.
As a spoiler, I can let you know that 8.2 has an updated mech.exe. This incorporates some changes in the AI force selection routines, but that's about it.
As a member of the 8.2 OOB update team, I have the final patch in hand. I love it. You guys should be happy with the adjustments that were made, and with the wholesale overhaul of certain OOBs.
As a disclaimer, right now I will say that not all of the suggested changes in the OOB thread were implemented. I anticipate some complaints, but that's to be expected.
However, I request that comments be made in the "new improved 8.1 OOB" thread, which I will rename once 8.2 is released.
Any questions regarding changes should be directed to that thread.
With regards to all,
Gunny


Will the patch make old scenarios (like those designed in v8.1) screw up?




Orzel Bialy -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/20/2004 6:38:02 PM)

That's the 64,000 dollar question Warrior. [&:]




Goblin -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/20/2004 11:26:41 PM)

I was told that prior scenarios would not be compatible, which is why I am holding off any designing.

Goblin




Jim1954 -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/21/2004 12:51:52 AM)

So if a scenario designed under 8.1 won't work too well, what happens to PBEM's generated through 8.1?




KG Erwin -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/21/2004 1:19:30 AM)

Gents, AFAIK, PBEM games should probably be finished using the present OOBs.

No weapons slots were changed--this was a big no-no. However, many units and formations had adjustments made, so older scenarios just wouldn't be up-to-date. For guys playing solo long campaigns, the transition should be painless. The 8.2 read-me explains many of the changes--there were hundreds of tweaks made.

This was why I suggested that scenario designs-in-progress should be put on hold until 8.2 is released.

Here's a teaser--there were many changes made after this, but here's the USMC change list as of January 25:

" Added weapon 81 - another 4.5 Rocket with long range and add these to USMC Off Map Rocket Unit 128 weapons. Truck Rct unit 129 uses the 88 hex rockets. - Bryan -


>(notes added by Glenn Higginbotham 14 Jan 2004)
>(19 January 2004--formation availability change--see below)
>(24 January 2004--tank unit & formation changes--see below)
>Proposed Changes:
>
>Weapon/Unit/Formation# Original Stat New Stat
>(Unit 22--added M4A1 Sherman from US Army--cost stays as is, availability April 1943-end 1945-- GH DONE)
>(Units 21, 23, 24, 25 have availability dates changed to match historical usage-- GH DONE)
>(Units 40 [M9 Bazooka] & 91 [M1 Bazooka] have accuracy changed to 8 and 4,
>respectively--GH DONE)
>(Unit 53 [Jeep 60mm]-availability in Jan 49--GH DONE)
>(Unit 55 [Jeep, 1 man crew] --classed as 32-Scout Vehicle for carrying
>Recon Teams--GH DONE) (Unit 56 [Jeep] -- increase crew size to 2--GH DONE)
>(Unit 57 [Jeep w/30 cal] -- increaded cost to 14, to match US Army--GH
>DONE)
>(Unit 110 -- Lt Mortar crews changed to 4--GH DONE)
>Formation (1045 & 1046--availability begin Jan 1949--GH DONE)
>1132 change to platoon, special set to 0 --> DONE
>
>196, 197, 198 Medium Bombers change LBM from 0 to 853---> DONE
>
>To eliminate the M8 HMC Scott, I edited unit 047--> DONE 047 M4 105mm
>Change rarity from 0 to 3 --> DONE
>
>091 M8 HMC Scott changed class from 21-SP Artillery to 10- OffMap
>artillery.--> DONE Therefore neither of the M8 HMC Scott units will be
>available for purchase but they will remain available for Campaign players
>to buy in an upgrade if they wish. Also any scenarios or campaigns that
>have used these units will continue to have the units available for use as
>the scenario designer originally intended. (EXCELLENT STUART)
>
>
>To complete the fix, formations need to be corrected.
>(Formations 1010, 1011, 1013 changed to accomodate M4A1s--GH DONE)
>1014, 1015, 1016 change start dates from January 1944 to September 1945 and
>change the unit to 047.----> DONE <------ TOE for Formation 1015 CS-Tank
>Plt needs to be checked for historicity.
>
>1016 is an illegal formation because it contains a company formation
>1018---> DONE <---- Therefore to correct the build of Formation 1016 I made
>the following changes. These changes only correct the structure of the
>formations and are not checked for historical correctness.
>
>1016 Replace Unit 4 (1018) with Unit 2 (1038) Replace Unit 2 (1038) with
>unit 030 Add units 5 and 6 Insert formations 1031 and 1034. --> DONE
>
>1019 Replace units 4 and 5 M8 HMC Scott with units 047 I suspect this
>platoon to be incorrect and that the CS vehicle should be a halftrack.
>GLENN - WHAT DO YOU THINK? (Agree--replace unit 47 with unit 87--GH)
>
>who will do this?
>
>(I went ahead and made the change--see note on addition of Unit 88, the
>75mm M3A1 GMC--GH DONE)
>
>(Formations 1021 & 1022 have LCVP (211) replaced by LCM (212)--GH DONE)
>
>089 Do not change rarity from 3
>
>Unit 089 This is the M3 halftrack carrying the 75mm Howitzer for SPA duty.
>As far as I know this unit was not issued to USMC. Please check. (Not
>used--this unit should be deleted-GH)
>
>the rarity 3 code should eliminate the unit from the purchase list.
>Deleting the unit might cause problems to scenarios and campaigns. Please
>check that this unit is not available for purchase.
>
>1117, 1118 change units to 090 and availability to April 45 to 49 --> DONE
>
>087 Check availability dates especially the start date. My info says these
>were available for action in the Philippines in Dec 1941. Later versions
>carried the 75mm M1917A4 gun Maybe we can replace Unit 089 with a newer
>version of the M3 GMC? (087) GLENN---ALL FOR YOU---(There was a GMC M3A1--I
>have no specifics on it--GH)
>
>Simply copy the M3 to a new slot and replace the gun. Then change the start
>date

>to some time in 1942. There is discussion on this on the Forum.

>(OK. Unit 88 is the GMC M3A1, with the 75mm 1917A4. Unit 87 is now
>available from Dec 1941 to end 1942, and the new unit 88 avilable from Aug
>42 to end 45. Also note that weapon 34, the 75mm 1897A2, has no AP pen. I
>changed this to match what was in US Army--AP pen is now 86--GH DONE)
>
>(Formation 1023 now available beginning December 1941--GH DONE)
>
>211 LCVP has Carry Capacity of 232. This means it can load a tank. CC s/b
>1## Changed CC to 132--> DONE
>
>Weapon 109. I have mentioned this before. These weapons had a maximum range
>of 1000 yards. The rocket LCS had to get in real close to fire at the
>target Currently in OOB's these weapons have an effective range of 4800
>yards. NEED TO CHECK THIS OUT - GLENN - YOUR CALL--(Agree--max range is
>actually 1100 yards--GH)
>

>make note to check this in ALL allied OOB's.

>(Range of 4.5 Rockets changed from 224 to 88--all OOBs have been
>changed--GH DONE)
>
>If you change the class of 210 to 110-SP Rocket Launcher, the unit will
>have indirect fire capability. Move sound would have to be edited to the
>sound for landing craft. (066). Needs to be tested. NEED TO CHECK THIS OUT
>- GLENN - YOUR CALL

>(The Rocket Landing Craft were tested and sound is correct--GH DONE)
>
>cost of 210 relative to 206, 210 should be much more expensive. ---> DONE
><---
>
>1190 Landing Support Change unit to any other unit 205-209 NEED TO CHECK
>THIS OUT - GLENN - YOUR CALL--(All same type, or leave mix as is?--I don't
>use them--GH) When buying these you get either all one type (the default)
>or all a different type (your choice) If the formation is built up from a
>mixture, the player gets

>this choice of mixture first and then he can buy all one type - his choice-
>by

>selecting the choice. It is not a TOE issue but a game purchase choice
>issue.

>(I simply left the 1190 mix as it was--GH DONE)"

As I said, this list isn't complete--I went over this OOB time and again, and there were additions made up until the time the final OOBs were submitted. However, this sample should give you guys some idea of the working-over we gave the OOBs.




Jim1954 -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/21/2004 4:36:36 PM)

Ok, my last question, (maybe ). What happens to existing MC games? Is this patch going to cause them to act a little odd? If you are modding the mech.exe, will it be like H2H where you really need a separate install?




Jim1954 -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/23/2004 1:53:50 PM)

Well Gunny, since you haven't grabbed this one, I'll try to answer it myself. I talked with the WB about this and he's not really sure. That being the case, I will back everything MC related up somewhere else and see what happens when we get 8.2.

At this rate, I'm gonna need a bigger HD just for SP stuff.[X(]




KG Erwin -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/23/2004 3:20:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim1954

Well Gunny, since you haven't grabbed this one, I'll try to answer it myself. I talked with the WB about this and he's not really sure. That being the case, I will back everything MC related up somewhere else and see what happens when we get 8.2.

At this rate, I'm gonna need a bigger HD just for SP stuff.[X(]


Jim, sorry I didn't get back to you on this, but I don't have a definitive answer, either. Previous MCs seem to work OK with 8.1, do they not? I've only tested the 8.2 mech exe with generated and long campaigns--let me ask around.




Jim1954 -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/23/2004 3:41:59 PM)

Yes Glenn, 8.1 works fine with the MC's but IIRC there was no mod of the mech.exe file.




KG Erwin -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/23/2004 6:59:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim1954

Yes Glenn, 8.1 works fine with the MC's but IIRC there was no mod of the mech.exe file.


Jim, according to Resisti, he hasn't encountered any problems with MC play and 8.2.




Jim1954 -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/23/2004 8:29:14 PM)

Thanks G




Orzel Bialy -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/27/2004 7:09:00 AM)

Soooo, now that we are approaching the end of the month can we assume that a count down to launch can begin? T minus 10 and counting perhaps? [;)]




jewel -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/27/2004 2:24:19 PM)

9 [:D]




Kevin E. Duguay -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/27/2004 8:01:31 PM)

Is ti done yet? I can't stand it any more!! With out the new version how can we all be expected to go on with our daily tasks? [&:]




Fallschirmjager -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/27/2004 10:16:03 PM)

quote:

As a disclaimer, right now I will say that not all of the suggested changes in the OOB thread were implemented. I anticipate some complaints, but that's to be expected.
However, I request that comments be made in the "new improved 8.1 OOB" thread, which I will rename once 8.2 is released.
Any questions regarding changes should be directed to that thread.



Which means we could see an 8.3?

Its like we are chasing our own tails...




Belisarius -> RE: Hey Gunny... (4/27/2004 11:03:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

quote:

As a disclaimer, right now I will say that not all of the suggested changes in the OOB thread were implemented. I anticipate some complaints, but that's to be expected.
However, I request that comments be made in the "new improved 8.1 OOB" thread, which I will rename once 8.2 is released.
Any questions regarding changes should be directed to that thread.



Which means we could see an 8.3?

Its like we are chasing our own tails...


It depends on how you look at it. Even if every request made went into the patch, it'd still have gamers calling for an upgrade/change.

You can't make it perfect.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.265625