RE: 3 years and nothing changed (Full Version)

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



Message

Sturmpionier -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/19/2005 9:00:18 PM)

Yup, that's exactly what I expected. Thanks.



Nikademus -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/19/2005 9:49:35 PM)

I've mentioned it before, i'll say it again. It would be great if a future version of the game could allow players to select seperate morale and exp values and/or if the country training values could be seperated in terms of exp/morale. Seems that a good number of the complaints revolve not so much around low exp but the low morale that by default comes with them resulting in easy routings. It is possible after all to have inexperienced or poorly trained troops that are none the less, highly motivated.

on the same token its possible to have veteran units with shaky or beaten down morale. As it stands now you can only acheive these situations through custom designed scenarios.



Mike Wood -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/19/2005 10:37:37 PM)

Hello...

Mentioned it before and will say it again. Have something in mind. Working on it.

Thanks...

Michael Wood

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I've mentioned it before, i'll say it again. It would be great if a future version of the game could allow players to select seperate morale and exp values and/or if the country training values could be seperated in terms of exp/morale. Seems that a good number of the complaints revolve not so much around low exp but the low morale that by default comes with them resulting in easy routings. It is possible after all to have inexperienced or poorly trained troops that are none the less, highly motivated.

on the same token its possible to have veteran units with shaky or beaten down morale. As it stands now you can only acheive these situations through custom designed scenarios.




Nikademus -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/19/2005 11:02:42 PM)

[sm=00000289.gif] [&o] [sm=00000280.gif]



Alby -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/20/2005 1:35:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Mentioned it before and will say it again. Have something in mind. Working on it.

Thanks...

Michael Wood

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I've mentioned it before, i'll say it again. It would be great if a future version of the game could allow players to select seperate morale and exp values and/or if the country training values could be seperated in terms of exp/morale. Seems that a good number of the complaints revolve not so much around low exp but the low morale that by default comes with them resulting in easy routings. It is possible after all to have inexperienced or poorly trained troops that are none the less, highly motivated.

on the same token its possible to have veteran units with shaky or beaten down morale. As it stands now you can only acheive these situations through custom designed scenarios.




M.W. for President!!

[&o][&o][&o][&o]



Korpraali V -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/20/2005 6:32:56 AM)

Thank you, sir!
[&o]



Terminus -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/20/2005 12:50:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alby
M.W. for President!!

[&o][&o][&o][&o]



Hell no! He has to do something useful with his life, i.e. continue to program for Matrix!



Puukkoo -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/20/2005 1:16:49 PM)

Back in the old school man!

SP1 had three difficulty levels if I remember correctly. That idea didn't develop any further. It's a drag.

The morale value should anyway depend on the strategic situation in which the scenario is played.



Alby -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/21/2005 12:15:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alby
M.W. for President!!

[&o][&o][&o][&o]



Hell no! He has to do something useful with his life, i.e. continue to program for Matrix!


[:D]



Tropsbor -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/21/2005 6:16:05 AM)

Am I the only one whose impression is that we're trying to bite our tail? The first one says, "Increase the ratings." The other one replies, "No, leave them as they are." Notice the lack of arguments and supporting evidence? This has been going over 7 pages. So, how do you evaluate the morale, experience and leadership of minor troops? Well, the answer certainly doesn't lie on this board. Judging by the quality of the posts, I've come to the conclusion that neither you or I know the slightest bit of info on this matter. The only serious discussions seem to be centered around the US, Germany, Russia and Japan. Has anybody here actually read a book dealing with the minors or read articles written by specialists in this field? If not, people here permit themselves too much liberty when they write oneliners with no arguments and sources whatsoever, and expect readers to take it as fact. So we're left with only one option: ask the friggin' nationals! I doubt that we are well placed to talk about the history of countries that are sitting at the edge of the western world when we barely know ours. [:D]

Here's a start:

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/

http://www.comandosupremo.com/forum/

Register
Log
Ask

Locked until further notice.

That's what I'd say if I was a moderator.



David Heath -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/21/2005 6:25:38 AM)

Oh not just seven pages ....... try ten years.

David



Tropsbor -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/21/2005 7:16:29 AM)

Well, I've had the time to look through some threads and I found an interesting point raised by one of the posters

quote:

I saw today a TV documentary (Discovery Channel) about the war in Crimea. When analyzing the strength of the German forces that attacked Crimea, the speaker said that the Romanian forces that were part of this force were fightin without any entusiasm because, after the Moldavian provences were conquered, the Romanians lost their interest in fighting on the East front. He also said that the fighting value of the Romanian division was insignificant, as the men were not motivated enough and they were poorly trained. The Romanians were described as one of the weeknesses of the Axes force.
This contradicts most of what I know about this subject. Discovery Channel often tends to alter the historical truth to mach the western point of view of the events in WW2. But I'm starting to have some doubts about the accuracy of the things I've read so far, maybe Romanians also tend to overestimate their contribution. Can you point me a book that covers this domain with an impartial point of view?


quote:

Discovery Channel is not a reliable source of detailed information about WWII. I really doubt that the people who made the documentary actually researched the subject beyond von Manstein's Lost Victories, which is not a really accurate source. Probably they did not even bother to read Third Axis, Fourth Ally
The best book on the subject is by far Romanii in Crimeea by Adrian Pandea and Eftimie Ardeleanu, Ed. Militara, 1995. It is 3 quarters original documents. I do not feel that the authors exaggerated the Romanian contribution, as you think, but have kept a really professional and impartial attitude.

The fact that for 50 years the Western historians had access mainly to German archives and memoirs had created a very German view on the Eastern Front, leaving no room for the military accomplishments of the other players. Read the articles on Crimea 1941-42 on this site. I assure you I tried to be as impartial as I could and show the things how they happened.



Tropsbor -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/21/2005 7:23:31 AM)

http://www.comandosupremo.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=248&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=effective&start=0



VikingNo2 -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/21/2005 3:32:32 PM)

Good read, what I have been trying to advocate is the the leadership values be low like thay are in the receint change abut the the moral and exp level should be moved up.

I cannot support my request or point very well, I just know that values across the board on a nation in the 30s, make them very very hard to play.



Sturmpionier -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/21/2005 5:40:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tropsbor

If not, people here permit themselves too much liberty when they write oneliners with no arguments and sources whatsoever, and expect readers to take it as fact.


That is so not true. Believe me.



Goblin -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/22/2005 12:12:38 AM)

I'm awesome. Honest. [:)]


Goblin



KG Erwin -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/22/2005 1:09:06 AM)

If Michael's idea comes to fruition, then the argument over ratings will become moot. ALMOST everything in SPWaW can be edited by the user via the "preferences" acreen and OOB Editor, so the next logical step is...



soldier -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/23/2005 7:13:41 PM)

quote:

Good read, what I have been trying to advocate is the the leadership values be low like thay are in the receint change abut the the moral and exp level should be moved up.

I cannot support my request or point very well, I just know that values across the board on a nation in the 30s, make them very very hard to play.



I too base my comments on gameplay issues. Medium to low calibre tanks that can't load up more than one shot once their engaged suggests a gameplay problem, similarly common military sense the world over would suggest that you soften up entrenched positions with artillery prior to attacking but its not required against minors currently. I like a war game to represent this



mogami -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/24/2005 7:06:56 AM)

Hi, If you allow the other player to use arty to soften you up then your ratings will not matter. The low ratings go to countries that were always softened up before being assaulted.
Make the Poles 60 and give the Germans 1000 points worth of Stukas. Make the Romanians 70 and give the Soviets 10k worth of arty and sturmoviks.

The real problem is not minors being too low it's Germans in 1944-45 being too high because german players don't like to let Allied players use aircraft or artybut like to sit in their Tigers surrounded by SS. This makes the whole system go whacky.

I'd even suggest that the morale of units be impacted directly by the amount of air and arty support they have.

Experiance ratings are not national issue. In campaign games your core force will always become elite. In PBEM or online pick forces that are balanced or assign more points/better positon to side with lower experiance. scenario designers have always been ale to assign ratings.



Swamprat -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/24/2005 3:05:03 PM)

quote:

The real problem is not minors being too low it's Germans in 1944-45 being too high because german players don't like to let Allied players use aircraft or artybut like to sit in their Tigers surrounded by SS.



Actually this is a very good point.



Puukkoo -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/24/2005 5:24:59 PM)

It not cool to lose all your Tigers to a squadron of Hawker Typhoons. Ten strike elements with rocket ammunition makes war much easier for Monty.



Swamprat -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/24/2005 6:14:58 PM)

It's not cool to lose all your Shermans to a squadron of Tigers.

And it's not as if the Typhoons are free.

And who said anything about ten?

The implication of course is that it takes no great skill to paralyse your opponent with artillery or destroy his tanks with airpower. But it takes no great skill to pick off allied tanks with impunity with a Tiger or something similar.

PBEM restrictions are meant to make a game fairer, but some people's idea of what's fair does sometimes only involve what their opponent may have and not what they might purchase themselves.



Puukkoo -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/24/2005 6:56:44 PM)

If I play Western allies, I never go anywhere without at least ten strike elements and that about a squadron, I think. I meant that sentence "It's not cool..." to be taken as irony.



Swamprat -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/24/2005 9:36:44 PM)

And the ten strike elements, please tell me that's irony too. I mean, TEN??![X(]


[;)]



Puukkoo -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/24/2005 9:55:50 PM)

I think its useful on long campaign. If it's a defensive mission and you're just too tired to move all the pieces, so why don't let the RAF lads handle the situation?

The air power was even more effective in one Japan vs. China battle. Jap groundforces hardly even encountered the enemy...



duskdeep -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/27/2005 4:22:24 PM)

I haven't been browsing this forum for a while so I kind of lost track of all the posts.
Late as it is, I would like to add some information, from what I personally know.
So...Romania/Romanians
In Romanian we write our country's name "România".It is pronounced something like [ro`mânia], where the â is very hard to explain how to pronounce as I think that English doesn't have explicit sounds that match â in any way.Maybe it sounds like when you say "Mmmmm...",the last finishing sound.
As for our alphabet, we use the Latin one of course, although during a large period of our history, mainly the Medieval Era, the Cyrilic alphabet was used, mostly in Church writings as those were a major part of written Romanian.
As for our descendancy, we are a mixture of Dacians (who lived in ancient times on Romania's current territory), Romans, who then conqured Dacia and made it a provence, bringing alot of elements of language, culture, etc and finally Slavs, who came last.The language, as it is today, is mostly influenced by Latin , with a fair share of Slav words, and also some minor influences like Turkish, from which we also adopted a small part of our vocabulary.
As for român/rumân, both words were used by our people during our history.What is insteresting is that others didn't call us român/rumân but vlahi.So you can't really say that foregneirs have made a stable habbit of calling us Rumanians.To conclude this somehow, in our modern history we have decided upon calling ourselves Romanians, with 'o', just like the French concluded in naming themselves français instead of françois and the Germans deutsch instead of leutsch (hope I'm not mistaken...)



Puukkoo -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/27/2005 5:43:46 PM)

The Turks did not have great influence anyhow on Romania and therefore the country preserved many Roman Imperial customs and features? I'm I wrong?

'Vlahi' probably refers to Valachia? I know that many medieval westerners may well have been jealous of the name of Rome in your name and that's why they have tried to distort your country's name into something else.

I have thought that the word 'Deutsch' comes from 'Teutones'. It may well come from 'Leute' (people, folk), but I also know that pre-historic Italian language Oscan has 'touto' for 'people', which probably is from the same root.



duskdeep -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/28/2005 12:25:36 AM)

Although Moldavia,Valachia and Transylvania (the states that later formed our country after uniting) never became a Turkish "pasalâc" (I don;t really know the English equivalent, it was when the turks moved their whole administration into a territory), Valachia (the southern region of modern Romania) and Moldavia (the Eastern part) had to pay tribute for a long time to the Ottoman Empire.Also, from the beginning of the 18th century until 1821, these states had rulers brought by the turks from Fanar, Constantinopole. These more or less direct contacts with the turks led to some influence.Actually, all the Balcan states in Europe suffer more of corruption than their western neighbours, corruption which is thought to be caused by contact with the oriental culture and way of living.In our language we have e.g. the word "ciubuc" pronounced [ts`ubuc] (ts stands for that diftong in which tou have a t and a long s after it) which is of Turkish origin and means a small bribe.

As for the word "vlahi", it seems that it was first used by the germanic people ("wälschi") in order to name the peoples that were of Latin origin.The Slavs seem to have truncated this into the word "vlah".As history progressed "vlah" gradually became the name given to all those that spoke Romanian.As a side note, Romanian wasn't limited only to the territory north of the Danube, where modern Romania is situated today, but also it was spread to the south of the Danube river.From "vlahi" came also the name of the southern region "Valachia".Anyway you put it, nobody seems to have contested our latin origin (except maybe Hungarians[:)] ).

And lastly, speaking of origin, we are more proud of our Dacian ancestors than our Roman ones.

Hope I didn't say anything wrong and hope I didn't start to bore anyone, but I'm always happy to speak about my country when someone is interested.



Puukkoo -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/28/2005 11:19:43 AM)

That wasn't boring! On the contrary I think I got exactly what I wanted to know. Thank you very much![&o]

It was also interesting to know that you are more proud of Dacian ancestors than Roman ones.



cadmus -> RE: 3 years and nothing changed (10/28/2005 5:01:33 PM)

Duskdeep ... Far, far from boring. Both enlightening and enjoyable. Thank you. Postings such as yours are another reason why this forum is so enjoyable.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.046875