Wishes for V3 (Full Version)

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



Message

McGib -> Wishes for V3 (7/3/2000 9:30:00 PM)

There's one thing I've not seen talked about here yet, non-turreted AFV's. Stug's and jagdpanther type AFV's I think should expend movement to rotate. Playing earlier german campaigns why buy panzer 4's when you pay less for stug's? And they dont show a weaker turret armor to turn and shoot at a target outside thier front facing? Non-turreted AFV's should expend movement to change facing's (as should most towed guns) to give turreted AFV's the advantage that turrets where made for! Also I dont think you should be able to right click on an enemy truck or half-track and see what its carrying. The infantry are inside how do you see them? Do we have realtime satellite imagery all ready? You should see towed guns and tank riding infantry sure but not troops riding inside a vehicle. McGib ex canuck sailor ready aye ready



Larry Holt -> (7/3/2000 11:47:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by McGib: ... Non-turreted AFV's should expend movement to change facing's (as should most towed guns) to give turreted AFV's the advantage that turrets where made for! Also I dont think you should be able to right click on an enemy truck or half-track and see what its carrying. The infantry are inside how do you see them? Do we have realtime satellite imagery all ready? You should see towed guns and tank riding infantry sure but not troops riding inside a vehicle. McGib ex canuck sailor ready aye ready
I fully agree that there should be a cost to rotate non-turreted AFV's & towed AT guns!! This effectively would model their limitation vs turreted tanks. I think most trucks near the FEBA would have had their canvas removed and their passengers could be seen. I agree that passengers in halftracks would be screened from sight. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.



victorhauser -> (7/4/2000 2:28:00 AM)

In general, I like the idea of making turretless and manhandled weapons pay a movement penalty for rotating in a hex to fire, but there are problems. Some towed weapons have no movement allowance and would find it difficult to pay a movement penalty. And for those turretless and manahndled weapons that do have movement allowance, how much penalty do they pay? Those are problems without clear solutions. A Suggestion For Suggestions... In Eldredge Cleaver's classic 1960s book "Soul on Ice", he makes a statement that has become one of the defining slogans of my generation: "If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem." It seems that we are all filled with an endless supply of wishes, suggestions, desires, critiuqes, and demands when it comes to "improving" SPWAW. The PROBLEM is: "How can you state a wish, suggestion, desire, critique, or demand in such a way that the Matrix Staff can not only make sense out of what you are stating, but so they can also have an idea of how to go about addressing it." The SOLUTION is: "Whenever you state a wish, suggestion, desire, critique, or demand, also include a means of illustrating and/or turning that statement into a reality." Put another way, I've been a part of several organizations that had a standing policy: "If you are going to make a suggestion or critique that something needs to be 'fixed', then also provide a means to go about 'fixing' it." Many of the posts I read in this Forum, provide a vague description of a problem or wish (like, "Bunkers and Forts are indestructible. Please fix this."), but provide no ideas of how to go about doing it. And so the Matrix staff reads this and scratches their collective heads and thinks to themselves, "Well so and so wants us to do something about such and such, but how can we go about doing it? And what exactly do they want us to do in the first place?" Let's be part of the solution by providing the Matrix Staff with enough specific information to both clearly identify what it is we want them to do, as well as a way to go about doing it. An Example. During campaign and generated battles, I have noticed that visibilities in SPWAW seem much lower than those in SP1 and SP2. I rarely see visibilities greater than 30 in SPWAW, where visibilities of 70 or more were not uncommon in SP1 and SP2 (I even remember visibilities of 90+ on rare occasions). I also know that SPWAW is derived from the SP3 game engine, which leads me to suspect that something having to do with SP3 visibilities is having an effect on SPWAW visibilities in campaign and generated battles. I would like to see SPWAW visibilities for campaign and generated battles become more like those in SP1 and SP2. [This message has been edited by victorhauser (edited 07-03-2000).] [This message has been edited by victorhauser (edited 07-03-2000).]



FrankyVas -> (7/4/2000 2:44:00 AM)

As to the problem of having self propelled guns and guns pay no penalty for turning. Slight solution: When a self propelled gun turns more than one facing, take a shot away(more if neede). If a gun turns more than one facing, take all it's shots away, like when dismounting. I say, take shots away after one facing because most guns had a small angle of traversal (some had bigger than others) that could be accomplished in their carriage. Frank V.



Voriax -> (7/4/2000 2:46:00 AM)

Actually you are already paying a penalty when you buy StuG's. You get a lower rate of fire than Pz IV's. I guess this is supposed to represent the limited traverse of the gun - takes longer to aim. Voriax



McGib -> (7/4/2000 2:51:00 AM)

Ok ... how's this ... guns without movement allowance pay with shots, when they run out they can't rotate. non-turreted vehicles pay 1 per facing regardless of terrain. Except maybe heavy woods, pay 2 maybe. You should not be able to see into trucks to see what if any type of troops it is carrying, unless you are infantry at a range of 1. Reasoning is that only the insane ride into battle on purpose inside trucks, assuming this the canvas sides are down cause you have just caught the bad guy with his pants down, otherwise his infantry would have already deployed out of the vehicle. McGib Ready Aye Ready



Galanti -> (7/4/2000 6:42:00 AM)

Is it possible to make the sniper a special forces unit? You could therefore deploy them as commandos which would probably make them more effective tactically.



Drake666 -> (7/4/2000 7:09:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Voriax: Actually you are already paying a penalty when you buy StuG's. You get a lower rate of fire than Pz IV's. I guess this is supposed to represent the limited traverse of the gun - takes longer to aim. Voriax
Yes their penalty is high as it is with their lower ROF and their High cost. I dont buy them as it is, you add a turning cost into it and no one would ever buy them again.



Spunkgibbon -> (7/4/2000 8:20:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Galanti: Is it possible to make the sniper a special forces unit? You could therefore deploy them as commandos which would probably make them more effective tactically.
I like the idea but snipers would have to cost more. Personally, I already think that snipers should cost 10-20 points because they can be devastating to anything on the battlefield except armour. And that's before you take into account their stealthy movement and observation uses.



Drake666 -> (7/4/2000 8:28:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Spunkgibbon: I like the idea but snipers would have to cost more. Personally, I already think that snipers should cost 10-20 points because they can be devastating to anything on the battlefield except armour. And that's before you take into account their stealthy movement and observation uses.
Got to agree with you their. I think them 2 and 4 man reacon teams should be increased to about that to.



Voriax -> (7/4/2000 10:24:00 AM)

One way to deal with sniper would be to lower it's maximum kill ratio from the current 5. I've thought this figure a bit odd as sniper is firing single shots, but now with little luck you can wipe out a full squad with only two shots! Voriax



McGib -> (7/4/2000 10:35:00 AM)

The point I was trying to make about non-turreted AFV's is this; you pull up next to one on a side or rear facing and it suddenly turns facing you, and will say it fires and misses, hears the kicker, with a turreted afv you can still hit that weaker side/rear armor. With a non-turreted afv you are hitting that thick stuff on the front. Now your tactical move to get that side shot with your tank that doesnt have a prayer on that front armor is useless cause he gets a free turn to face you. Very frustrating when your playing the western allies with tanks with weaker armor and guns. If the lower ROF was put in because the tank has no turret then lets raise it and put the penalty where it makes more sense. After all thats turrets were invented!



Voriax -> (7/4/2000 11:53:00 AM)

McGib, when you move your tank and decide to shoot at a target that you have suddendly spotted at your side, do you first turn your tanks facing at the enemy? I do, usually. Or when your tank ends it's movement with side hull facing the direction of the enemy, do you turn the tank so that it's hull front faces the enemy? Now this is very very unfair, and the turning of a hull instead of just a turret should cost movement points. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] My point is: Why penalize the change of hull facing in one type of vehicle and not all types? This problem of yours really is in effect in situations where computer controlled vehicle reacts to enemy fire. In this case the hull turning becomes a problem. But when you turn the hull around freely via right clicking, it is no longer a problem [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Besides, adding mp cost for even one class of vehicle would mean that their speed should be increased a lot, as then they could not move as much as before because they'd have to spend mp's when they chance facing moving from one hex to another. And when a tank would move the same route, for some reason it would be faster as it would *not* have to spend mp's for the *same* moves as the assault gun. Voriax



Corkman -> (7/4/2000 4:45:00 PM)

Just little tuning in interface. No more play SPWAW - play SPWAW and Exit SPWAW - Exit SPWAW; two times like in version 2.3. Option to show or not-to-show starting movie. Thanks for great game!



Arralen -> (7/4/2000 6:27:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Voriax: ... and the turning of a hull instead of just a turret should cost movement points. Voriax
Exactly. Let turning hull cost 1 point / hexside - this will eliminate most "instant-turning" of AI vehicles, and make the players think twice about right-clicking around the map [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Arralen



Voriax -> (7/4/2000 7:20:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Arralen: Exactly. Let turning hull cost 1 point / hexside - this will eliminate most "instant-turning" of AI vehicles, and make the players think twice about right-clicking around the map [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]
Yep, but as long as movement doesn't follow direct line but goes from one hex centre to another not a bright idea to put in, IMO [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Voriax



von Curow -> (7/5/2000 3:42:00 AM)

Here's another thought. I often find that when I have a unit appear from out of deep woods on the flank of some tanks (and even turretless AFVs!), one or more of the enemy tanks (which might even be 15 or more hexes away) turns and fires at my unit... and often this is 20+% chance to hit. This sometimes completely takes away any advantage of outflanking your opponent, when your outflanking force gets devastated by opportunity fire. It would be nice if there was some delay to the enemy reaction. Perhaps the spotting ability of the vehicles would influence this? (I thought it would, but way too many SU-85s seem to whirl 90 or 120 degrees and take shots at tanks previously not visible.) KC



troopie -> (7/5/2000 4:16:00 AM)

The ability to actually use custom maps in generated battles. troopie ------------------ Pamwe Chete



McGib -> (7/5/2000 6:54:00 AM)

Voriax I never said that turreted tanks would not have to pay a cost for turning. And yes I do turn my front facing towards an enemy when I fire and when I end my turn, but what if I've used up my movement for the turn ... then its bad planning on my part. I dont think you should increase the speed of any vehicle if this idea were used because the speed is only an indication of how much the tank can do within a set time frame. And rotating a tank at speed or stationary takes time. Thats why firing now takes away speed. One way to think about it is not so much as how fast a tank can go but just how much it can do within a set time frame, I cant recall exactly what the turn length is supposed to be in SP but I think it's 1 - 3 min, but dont quote me on that. I just dont think its right that a non-turreted vehicle(and towed guns) should be able to turn for free in response to enemy movement or firing. The big advantage for turreted vehicles was the turret, to be able to rapidly train the main gun on a target regardless of the vehicle facing, why take that advantage away? One of the main advantages that turreted vehicles have currently is to be able to fire in any direction after its been immobolised. And lastly my suggestions to correct (IMO) this problem was in response to Victorhauser's request that we give suggestions to remedy a problem we would like to have fixed. McGib



Voriax -> (7/5/2000 1:35:00 PM)

McGib, the best part of this forum is that we can freely discuss and disagree [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] How things are done/should be done in the game. I obviuosly disagree in making turns cost moves, but that is my opinion. Btw, if you think about it, in many cases turning entire hull instead of a turret is faster. For example there was a late Pz-IV model that had a hand-cranked turret. And none of the big German tanks had especially fast turret, say about 40 seconds full turn at the worst. Russian KV tanks were practically unable to turn their turrets if they weren't on a level ground. If you turn your tank with tracks you can get the gun pointing in the approximately right direction is just couple seconds, and then do the fine aiming by using the normal gun laying mechanism. Voriax



Spunkgibbon -> (7/5/2000 8:34:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Voriax: Btw, if you think about it, in many cases turning entire hull instead of a turret is faster.
Michael Wittmann, the famous German tanks ace rarely rotated his turret choosing instead to turn the whole hull. He did this in all the tanks he commanded including the Tiger. Apparently he got into the habit when he commanded a Stug earlier in his career.



Tombstone -> (7/6/2000 5:36:00 AM)

Having to pay for turning hexsides manually is probably the single largest wish I could think of. It's adds a TON more to the tactical decision making the player has to go through. Maybe it could be an option? In response to someone who said that they would never purchase assault guns if they had to pay for turning: StuG-III's are notorious for being one of the MOST cost effective units in the game. Pak40 is good enough to get through almost any unit's side armor or front at close range, and it has good enough front armor to take 'some' hits as well as the carrying capacity to schlep folks around. If it had to pay to turn then maybe I'd buy those expensive german tanks. (except that the costs are a little more equal now in SPWAW.) Tomo



BA Evans -> (7/6/2000 5:58:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by von Curow: Here's another thought. I often find that when I have a unit appear from out of deep woods on the flank of some tanks (and even turretless AFVs!), one or more of the enemy tanks (which might even be 15 or more hexes away) turns and fires at my unit... and often this is 20+% chance to hit. This sometimes completely takes away any advantage of outflanking your opponent, when your outflanking force gets devastated by opportunity fire. KC
So when the tank turns to face your flank attack it is now exposing its side or rear to your main force? This doesn't sound like much of a problem to me. The whole point of a flank attack is that no matter which way the enemy tank faces, someone has a shot at its side/rear. Do you coordinate your flank attack to occur when the enemy tanks are already engaged from the front? If you do, SOMEONE is getting a side shot at them. I don't unleash my flank attacks until the enemy is already occupied from another direction. This sounds like a tactics problem, not a game mechanic problem. BA Evans



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.046875