RE: The Upcoming Changes to the Mech.exe (Full Version)

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



Message


Alby -> RE: The Upcoming Changes to the Mech.exe (11/17/2005 1:31:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sabrejack

Sometimes the reason you need to drop multiple smoke grenades relates to height. I think (but am not 100% sure) if the other unit is on a higher elevation you need 2 (or more) smoke grenades (from an infantry unit) to block LOS.

Also, if a unit runs into trouble, drops smoke and retreats one hex from something with a big gun (like a SU152 or big SP gun), 'z' firing into the smoke hex can still cause casualties, and possibly reflects 'random' fire without actually being able to see the enemy.

We can argue about the realism of one unit being able to block an entire 50 yard hex with smoke, but then firing into it with small arms would be equally difficult to actually hit anything... dropping mortar shells or firing big guns into the area can be quite effective (at least against infantry).



Consider this when it comes to the smoke isssue in SPWAW

The artificial intelligence makes smoke, when retreating, if it passes an
experience check and has some smoke. Troops sometimes do this in real war.
It would not be so important, if the game had micro-terrain and the squads
could spread out over half a hex or so, as they ran away. Open terrain
seldom looks like a pool table top, but usually cover and concealment which
allows troops to disappear behind wells, bushes, ditches, ground undulations
and the like. There is no provision for this in the game. Retreating
troops stay in the same, small clump they used for concentrated fire, when
retreating. If the game allowed troops to change from concentrated
formation to dispersed formation, it would be much more difficult for one
hand grenade or machine gun burst to kill several of them, at once.

Although a machine gun can fire through smoke, they do not, in real life, as
the machine gunner does not have the top view of a concentrated formation
that the player has. He just knows they made smoke. He does not know if
they went to ground, ran to the right or left or spread out, crawled away or
found micro-terrain cover.

The game tries to make up for the lack or micro-terrain and formation
density rules by using smoke, when retreating. Has been that way, since
Steel Panthers I and is an integral part of the game.






KG Erwin -> RE: The Upcoming Changes to the Mech.exe (11/17/2005 1:52:14 AM)

Alby forgot to mention that the explanation on why smoke works the way it does came straight from Michael Wood. We thank you, Mike! [;)]




Alby -> RE: The Upcoming Changes to the Mech.exe (11/17/2005 2:44:15 AM)

damn...I wanted to sound like I knew something!!
LOL
[:D]




soldier -> RE: The Upcoming Changes to the Mech.exe (11/17/2005 12:37:17 PM)

Actually its very very difficult to hit troops that are retreating behind smoke with small arms fire. The area fire feature does not bring any bad elements to the SP CAMO games, in fact it reduces gamey play like driving up to the front line unloading troops and dropping smoke. Try that in MBT and your in for a rude shock.

-passengers take casualties (the only good feature of 8.4, all other changes for the worse)
-unloading near enemy draws op fire
-troops hiding behind smoke in good status are vunerable at close range to sufficient firepower.
-troops cannot reload and drive away because loading costs movement points [:)]

The feature is actually a big improvement to WW2/MBT. It is only bad in your mind because progressive change is often feared. Try MBT and you wll see




VikingNo2 -> RE: The Upcoming Changes to the Mech.exe (11/17/2005 3:27:01 PM)

I have been trying MBT for a while, I like that it cost shots for loading and unloading. What I don't like is infantry is very very strong, it should be named Modern Infantry Fighting instaed of MBT.

The accuracy of RPGs and Bazookas are very high.

It has some very good qualities, but it is a different engine




Alby -> RE: The Upcoming Changes to the Mech.exe (11/18/2005 12:16:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VikingNo2

I have been trying MBT for a while, I like that it cost shots for loading and unloading. What I don't like is infantry is very very strong, it should be named Modern Infantry Fighting instaed of MBT.

The accuracy of RPGs and Bazookas are very high.

It has some very good qualities, but it is a different engine



I currently have an Email game going in SPMBT and My Milans are so deadly its ridiculous...[X(]
I dont even need tanks!!

I dont remember them being so deadly in SP3
LOL [:D]




chopper66 -> RE: Release Timeframe? (11/16/2008 11:35:02 AM)

Are there any plans to write further patches?




Alby -> RE: Release Timeframe? (11/16/2008 9:30:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: idwilson66

Are there any plans to write further patches?

'Enhanced' will be updated for 2009, as for the mech.exe.....I kinda doubt it.




chopper66 -> RE: Release Timeframe? (11/16/2008 9:41:37 PM)

Although I am impressed with enhanced, it seems a crying shame not to farm out this game as open source with some suitable not for profit license agreement so that some of the problems could be ironed out. Something like that might actually increase the chance that such things as Mega Campaigns would be more popular from Matrix's point of view and might even spin off some good titles for Matrix to benefit from as budding developers learn some lessons from the code. It is hard to see how an open source approach would be damaging given the age of the title.




chopper66 -> RE: The Upcoming Changes to the Mech.exe (11/16/2008 9:52:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alby

The game tries to make up for the lack or micro-terrain and formation
density rules by using smoke, when retreating. Has been that way, since
Steel Panthers I and is an integral part of the game.



Although you present a rational argument for keeping smoke, and suggest a good alternative, I cannot help but wonder why it would be such a big thing for an additional option to be added for reducing the amount of infantry smoke in game, or adjusting its longevity.

Also, I am struck by how relatively hard it is to kill 'pinned' infantry, which seems to model the situation you mention without turning to smoke (i.e. infantry first retreat and then go to cover with a pinned status).

I can handle short-lived smoke intended to provide cover, which would not need to block vision and could instead modify to hit values (a trivial coding exercise), but the large scale smoke popped by retreated units that seems to hang around for an eternity ruins things for me.




KG Erwin -> RE: The Upcoming Changes to the Mech.exe (11/16/2008 11:05:13 PM)

SPWaW is a "legacy" game, and further changes will be done by the players.  We are fortunate in that programmer Michael Wood tweaked the game for 8.403, and contributed to the "enhanced" version.  I do not foresee any major rewrites, so the game , apart from OOB changes, is what it is.

As for the "smoke shield", hell, I just don't use it.  Yeah, let the AI employ it, as it needs all the help it can get. There are several "house rules" that can be employed, and this helps even out the game. Arty effectiveness set to 120% is a good one.   




Arctic Blast -> RE: Release Timeframe? (11/16/2008 11:27:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: idwilson66

Although I am impressed with enhanced, it seems a crying shame not to farm out this game as open source with some suitable not for profit license agreement so that some of the problems could be ironed out. Something like that might actually increase the chance that such things as Mega Campaigns would be more popular from Matrix's point of view and might even spin off some good titles for Matrix to benefit from as budding developers learn some lessons from the code. It is hard to see how an open source approach would be damaging given the age of the title.


Keep in mind that, so far as I know, Matrix does not 100% OWN the Steel Panthers game code, so it's not just up to them to make it open source, but also up to whoever does have ownership rights of SSI's back catalogue.




chopper66 -> RE: Release Timeframe? (11/17/2008 4:02:48 PM)

Ah, yes, I'm not exactly sure who owns those rights but was living in hope. :)




tracer -> RE: Release Timeframe? (11/17/2008 6:24:46 PM)

Of course for PBEM and generated battles you're stuck with the 'default' smoke loadout, but when designing a scenario you can easily reduce or even eliminate it. In AI-defend battles I normally remove all smoke ammo for the defenders to prevent them from popping it while retreating, which more often than not only aids the attacker.




chopper66 -> RE: Release Timeframe? (11/17/2008 8:52:06 PM)

I am one of those who likes the linked campaign, and even name unit leaders (sad I know).




Alby -> RE: Release Timeframe? (11/17/2008 10:00:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: idwilson66

I am one of those who likes the linked campaign, and even name unit leaders (sad I know).

I like campaigns as well
[:)]




chopper66 -> RE: Release Timeframe? (11/17/2008 10:27:44 PM)

As a somewhat weathered grognard, I would go as far as to say that this is my favourite all time computer game - it is certainly the game I keep coming back to. [:)]





chopper66 -> RE: Release Timeframe? (11/17/2008 10:44:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tracer
In AI-defend battles I normally remove all smoke ammo for the defenders to prevent them from popping it while retreating, which more often than not only aids the attacker.


Which bit of the editor allows for smoke to be changed? [:)] I can find morale, weapon, name, experience and so on, but not smoke. [&:]




Alby -> RE: Release Timeframe? (11/17/2008 11:42:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: idwilson66


quote:

ORIGINAL: tracer
In AI-defend battles I normally remove all smoke ammo for the defenders to prevent them from popping it while retreating, which more often than not only aids the attacker.


Which bit of the editor allows for smoke to be changed? [:)] I can find morale, weapon, name, experience and so on, but not smoke. [&:]

when you assign a weapon to a unit it goes thru a list of stuff...he ammo, ap, smoke, heat....





chopper66 -> RE: Release Timeframe? (11/18/2008 5:31:53 PM)

Ah, thanks for that - quite a lot of effort then.




tracer -> RE: Release Timeframe? (11/19/2008 3:23:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: idwilson66

Ah, thanks for that - quite a lot of effort then.


When you change/re-assign a weapon, you are prompted for an amount of each ammo type. If you enter zero for smoke (for a single weapon), it removes all smoke rounds from the unit. So long as you don't enter a positive value for smoke during any subsequent weapon changes, the unit will remain 'smoke-free'.

Yes its time-consuming ...but its all we got. [;)]




chopper66 -> RE: Release Timeframe? (11/19/2008 4:04:15 PM)

I've tried to work out the structure of the save file, and with the work done by Fred I can almost write a small program that would remove smoke from all or selected units, but cannot quite get my head around the variable number of units within the file (in other words, how many unit records to read in before the next part of the file is reached).

It would be very little work for me to write the program, if I can get past this particular problem.




A Steve Too Many -> RE: Release Timeframe? (11/22/2008 6:09:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: idwilson66

Which bit of the editor allows for smoke to be changed? [:)] I can find morale, weapon, name, experience and so on, but not smoke. [&:]

You can also use the World at War Game Editor. Load the scenario, select "Unit Data": There is a field for "Smoke" that you can set to zero. You will still have to go unit-by-unit to make a force-wide change, but using the Game Editor is faster than SP's own weapons/unit editor (where you will have to set the weapon type AND other ammo).




A Steve Too Many -> RE: Release Timeframe? (11/22/2008 6:16:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: idwilson66

I've tried to work out the structure of the save file, and with the work done by Fred I can almost write a small program that would remove smoke from all or selected units, but cannot quite get my head around the variable number of units within the file (in other words, how many unit records to read in before the next part of the file is reached).

It would be very little work for me to write the program, if I can get past this particular problem.

Can you read the unit ID tag (A0, B0, B1, B2, ..., AB3)? Possibly you could count units that way? Or read to a blank (I think it's "--"), or if you could start reading at the "end" of the file and read back until you get to "A0" (the first unit)?




chopper66 -> RE: Release Timeframe? (11/22/2008 8:51:12 AM)

I haven't been able to identify a record field that corresponds with a unit ID.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.515625