|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
While we're nagging about terrain and talking about eye candy, there's two types of terrain that have been a pain due to their absence (only two, promise).
-Undergrowth, shrubland, chapparal, call it what you like. The idea is something intermediary between grass and forest, made up of tangled man-height tree saplings that make passage very, very hard for both infantry and vehicles. As I see it, it would restrict movement and visibility more than high grass, probably somewhere in the level of rough. As such, it would be a nice alternative to full-out forest in dryer climates (e.g. all around the Mediterranean, in most of the Middle East and southern Africa), and be more credible than high trees in desert maps. In the case where forest can be superimposed on it, it would become undergrowth proper, turning a nice clean forest into a tangled vegetal mess with trees sticking out of it. I know there have been discussions here in the past about the movement ratings of forest terrain, mostly boiling down to different people having different experiences of their local forests. As such, if you have a dedicated "undergrowth" terrain, you can use it for unkempt, impassable forest, while the "forest" terrain alone or with "forest ground" would stand for well-mannered forests with nice straight trees planted wide apart like apparently in some places in Finland. -White rough. It may sound silly, but I've bumped head-first into this one every time I tried to map the Mediterranean coast (again). The current rough palette is excellent for sand and rock desert, including a very nice red desert ground. [self-advertisement]see my CWM Chadian campaign http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif [/self-advertisement] Grey rough and impassable are far too dark and best suited for northern climates, off the cuff I'd associate them with Scottish or Norwegian shores. Just for the look of it, I would really like a lighter rocky terrain, maybe with some inbuilt vegetation. Without both of these how am I supposed to map this or this kind of places? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Disclaimer: I have no idea if the game allows for more terrain types, in code, type or interface, I'm just bouncing ideas. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Quote:
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
"-Undergrowth, shrubland, chapparal, call it what you like. The idea is something intermediary between grass and forest, made up of tangled man-height tree saplings that make passage very, very hard for both infantry and vehicles."
That sounds like a good idea. "Just for the look of it, I would really like a lighter rocky terrain, maybe with some inbuilt vegetation." There is already a rocky terrain with some built in vegetation: summer rough. Nothing whitish but as it has already been noted what are you looking for is actually a white impassable. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
"Nothing whitish but as it has already been noted what are you looking for is actually a white impassable."
On a second though however "winter rough" comes quite close to simulate what you are looking for. A bit crazy perhaps but it should work. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Quote:
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
So let's see if I can summarise this again:
# Sand Berms (Small/Intermediate). # Walls (Colours?). # More "cosmetic" damage to lighter (at least) houses when hit by heavy/medium mortars and arty. Something cosmetic on the ground too (if possible). # Shrubland. # Different graphic for the wooden bridge. # A better graphic for the dug-in tanks. # More varied sounds. Thats about it isn't it? |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Quote:
I know I could go on for days about ERA classes, active protection, EW effects, unit classes... I know 90% of this is unfeasible at any rate, but isn't all we already said here? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
"I know I could go on for days about ERA classes, active protection, EW effects, unit classes..."
Then start. Maybe there is something else we can find a partial fix for. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Well, as far as partial fixes go, short-ranged TI system (say for Eryx or TI infantry scopes in general) may be born by getting system similar to AAA fire control - ie say vision of 20 would be normal, vvision of 120 would be TI with range of 20. However, whether it is code-wise possible is in the stars and I won't consider it as priority.
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Sand berms, sounds, walls and cosmetic enhancements are not beyond the game engine. The existing terrain and OOB features suggest that much.
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
SPWaW and WinSP are similar or not?
Probably to make in WinSP " Command Control " as in SPWaW (to save Orders)? |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
SPWaW is based on SP3 game egine, SP:MBT and SP:WW2 are based on SP2 engine. Similar, but so close AFAIK.
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Quote:
Besides having different SP game engines as their basis (SP2 vs SP3) The games also have different design teams who have different opinions on the game and what is desirable. Don't expect features that are 'standard' in WaW in this game, they're not here for a good reason. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
To make for SAM, SP-SAM, etc. shooting by a volley (some rockets from one unit shoot at the same Turn).
But, that cost unit strongly did not increase. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
"Sand berms, sounds, walls and cosmetic enhancements are not beyond the game engine. The existing terrain and OOB features suggest that much."
Likely. Unless there is some limitation sand berms, for example, could replace hedgerows in the desert menu like it happens for many others terrains. "To make for SAM, SP-SAM, etc. shooting by a volley (some rockets from one unit shoot at the same Turn). But, that cost unit strongly did not increase." Can you try to explain what you are saying? As it is I do not get what you mean. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Quote:
Where volley fire would be more useful will be in ground combat, for example for dispersing responsive opfire (kinda forming Pakfronts) but that would not be possible within code I'm afraid. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
For example, SAM "Patriot" now shoots one rocket at one Turn.
To change to 3-4 rockets in one Turn (in each of four weapon slot to place a rocket). To shoot all rockets at once, as well as at realities. You can always disconnect weapon slot to not shoot all rockets. Cost unit to not increase. It is necessary to edit only OOB SAM capable so to shoot at realities. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Ah, I see. But that would lead to a completely different can of worms, as say AI cannot switch weapons off and on and thus, all the SAM's would expend most of their missiles at very first target.
Also I doubt it's standard to fire entire four-cell Patriot launcher at one single plane. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Quote:
Since most if not all of the multi-slots SAMs (i.e. those that can be reliably proven to be able to shoot and guide several missiles at the same target) are fairly recent as battleground units, they are also quite sophisticated. Epoletov mentioned the Patriot, I'd rather make that the PAC-3 with the new KE missile. The 9M96 series in the S-400 complex could probably handle it as well, plus of course the ASTER, though my CW version to this day may be just that slightly overkill... All this just to say that even considering the IA can't stop, a SAM with 2 to 4 weapon slots will only shoot at one target while it's there. And this is important: it will not shoot several targets in the same turn except if you fool around with the ROF rating. This being said, you can and should fool around with the ROF rating to handle SAMs that can either fire on the move or engage several targets in one turn's length. Works with ATGM units as well BTW. So to get back to Epoletov's original point, volley-fire is doable by SAM units as such, but effectively without much cost increase. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Quote:
Go offline for two days and there's replies all over the place! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Regarding ERA, there are two little (?) things that IMO could make the whole thing more realistic. Firstly, change the class number from 2 to say 5, from the early slim stuff you find on 80s Chinese tanks and to this day on APCs all over the world to near-future heavy-slab asymmetrical-multilayered-whatever arrays that will cover e.g. the fated Black Eagle, all through the common ERA classes. Before you ask, this only makes sense if the ERA effect is quantified a bit more than it currently is. As I see it, each class should be assigned a warhead size value range against which it works (heavier weapons being assumed to blast through the ERA array unhindered and lighter warheads being not enough for setting it off), a max HEAT penetration it can absorb at zero incidence angle, a similar max AP/sabot penetration value, and a chance of stopping tandem-HEAT warheads. As such, they would be modeled more like add-on armor than like a magical bonus that can stop blunt the most powerful weapons without any remain. That would call for messages more like "ERA reduces penetration by XX", probably with a small chance of still getting "ERA defeats HEAT warhead" if the HEAT penetration is inferior to the ERA max resistance. Here is how it could be played out: <font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>class ERA values max WHS min WHS max HEAT max AP tandem chance real-life examples 1 1 to 10 4 2 30 0 0 anything weaker and lighter than Kontakt-1 2 11 to 20 5 3 45 5 0 Kontakt-1, Blazer 3 21 to 30 6 3 60 15 25 ERAWA, DYNAS 4 31 to 40 7 3 75 30 75 Kontakt-5 and similar 5 41 to 50 9 3 90 50 90 Kaktus and other future applications</pre><hr /> The values are debatable, but I think the principle can bring something more to the combat behavior of ERA-equipped vehicles. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Probably I was mistaken about SAM "Patriot", but not about other modern SAM.
We have a reserve officer of air defence, it speaks that SAM "Patriot" shoots one rocket on one target. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Marek_Tucan,
this is slightly off topic but a problem that always bothered me... I saw that you posted above that the problem of nations always using the same side of the map in specific country pairings can be circumvented by using the allied puchase option... Sounds good - however, I guess that means the experience + morale ratings of the 'master' nation apply to the allied nation as well - therefore, a good solution, I never thought of it - as long as you consider to manually adjust these ratings appropriately. But in the preferences options, this is - as I understand it - summarized under the option 'troop quality' and cannot be adjusted individually - am I right? Other downsides, I guess, would be that the leader names don't change, etc. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
The side of the map does not matter in the slightest really as there is no indication of North on the maps at all. There are 4 directions - top, left, right, and bottom. Where north is, you can decide for yourself (some scenario designers have indicated it with a text marker, for example).
Therefore, one side is set up along one edge, and the other on the opposite. Just like a tabletop wargame - you have your side of the table and your opponent the other. As to Allied forces - please read up on the use of the "Captured" option in the game help. Try a purchase using both allied and captured (With ID tags on to help the experiment) and examine the leader names and ratings. Cheers Andy |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
It is necessary to increase quantity of letters in a line of the name units. Now often there is no place for a writing of the full name units. For example, Mi-28N " Night Hunter " (the name of the Russian manufacturer new attack the helicopter). It is necessary not only Russian, and all. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif ------ It is desirable that machine guns in section shot on greater range, as at realities (now range MG in infantry section = 12 hex). |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Longer unit or weapon names will not happen. Legacy game code limitation.
Andy |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Quote:
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Quote:
Don/Andy - it's not like it's as important as the icing on the cake - nor even the cherry on top of the icing on top of the cake. But I do find that sounds add to the "ambience" of the game. If it could easily be done (and I know I'm not the one doing the work http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif so it's easy for me to say) I would welcome it. Trivial, I know........ |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Immobilized Tank in Mud, in the house, etc.
To make rescue of the got stuck machines. For example other tank or Engineer vechile could make it. It only idea. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
"Immobilized Tank in Mud, in the house, etc.
To make rescue of the got stuck machines. For example other tank or Engineer vechile could make it. it only idea." This can be done by inputting a 2XX value in the carry capacity parameter of said vehicle. I have already done it and it does work: you can load tanks stuck in collapsed building etc. and carry them away. The problem is that it works too fast compared to most real world situations. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
To take out the tank from a battlefield not a problem.
The idea consists in that the tank after repair could continue to be at war. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
"To take out the tank from a battlefield not a problem.
The idea consists in that the tank after repair could continue to be at war." It's too much time consuming to fit in the game time scale. This game is designed to deal with high intensity battles fought in a limited time span. Repairs are outside its scope. If game length was extended so that repairs were meaningful then you would have also to worry about the fuel consumption of several vehicles and various others issues. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Quote:
You won't tow 50 ton immobilised beast from a building wreckage in 3 minutes = one turn http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
And I also did not speak that the tank of 50 tons to make for 3 minutes...
I spoke for example random numbers, for example from 3 turns to 7 turns... It turns out from 15 minutes till 45 minutes. Why is not present? The tank has only got stuck in impassable places, anything at it has not broken, it needs to be towed off. To it not a turret has taken down from a shell http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Guys, this has been talked about over and over and over.
Just as Marek said: you won't tow a 50-ton tank out of a ditch or fallen house in one turn's real-life equivalent, let alone move it to anywhere. Of course one could hack the OOBs to come up with ARVs, and AFAIK that has been done now and then. Why this is and apparently will remain a no-go for the official version goes as follows: (beside the time issue) So you get your ARV with carry capacity 255 to tow away the heaviest tanks. With any luck you can use it to take away stuck AFVs, providing it doesn't get stuck itself and said AFV comes unstuck when you unload it (well duh, looks like the "immobilized" aka "speed=0" is written into the unit's data no matter what, but that remains to be checked). Now, supposing all the above conditions are met and your ARV is functional, what on earth should prevent you from isung it as a super-battletaxi? It is mobile, armored, and you can stuff it as full as a landing craft! You'll tell me, that's what player rules are for, but then you'd better make these ARVs designer-only access (e.g. modify tehn inside scenarios). And if ever you put them in OOBs, make even more damn sure that they don't fall into IA hands, because the IA doesn't understand nothing to player rules. This being said (or ranted...), there's this nice shiny and underused "tank transporter" class the IA isn't ever going to use, so if anyone here has OOB space and time to waste to try this out, lt us knoy if it works! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
It is necessary to make screen/window size for notebook (1280x800, etc.).
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Quote:
Therefore, for a 1280 by 800 wide-screen laptop, select 1280 by 1024 (or even 1600!) and it will fill only the available desktop screen area. And it'll leave the task bar so you can see email notifications, the clock etc. This is how several of our playtesters play on their laptops. (My IBM has a standard 1024 by 768 LCD so I cannot verify). Cheers Andy |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Quote:
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Two more ideas, one (#2) already was discussed for certain earlier.
1. To give tanks ability to destroy infantry in one with it hex (arrival vechicle on the soldier). Like Melee only the tank destroys infantry. 2. To accelerate the ending of fight when it is senseless for continuing. Flags except for one are for example grasped all, 5/6 armies of the opponent are destroyed, and fight all boringly lasts. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
I thought I might toss a couple of ideas.
1) A few "tall" buildings, which would enable any units in them to see farther in the urban landscape. 2) Some trick to make overpasses without having to use rivers and such. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
I´m not a fan of the overrun attack. I doubt it will hapen in real combat and even less when dealing with 50meter hexes.
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Quote:
I'd also like to see 1) 1-hex deep water - something like wider stream with heights of -3 and lower (deep water) being available. There are many rivers narrower than 50 meters and still impassable. 2) Also it'd be nice to have more road-terrain interaction, say road on rough - now it behaves as road whether you are driving along it or are coming to it from open terrain, I'd like if it behaved like road just when you are driving along, but upon entering from neighboring hex it'd be Rough (or impassable or whatever). Scientifically speaking, now all terrain features are anisothropic, I'd like to have the linear features isothropic. (another example - fire trenches, they should allow fairly quick movement of infantry along them, but penalise crossing as it is now) But I doubt the 2) is possible. OTOH 1) - there was terrain feature like this, IIRC in SPWAW, it was called "canal" and was generally graphically wider Stream and behaving like deep water. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
DRG
------------------- Question: It is possible to increase quantity slots for the units in OOB - to 1500 or 2000 slots? |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Almost anything is "possible" but I can tell you that right here and right now there are NO plans to expand the OOB's in that manner. Not now and not in any future I can foresee
There are no plans to make any further structural adjustments to either game. There are a few new items that will be added to this next patch but the game has been stretched about as far as it can be stretched. OK? Don |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
OK
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Quote:
Any chance of multi-level buildings? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Without going all funny about close-quarters commbat (which would be far-fetched at that scale), I'd second the idea of tall buildings. Also buildings on slopes, I keep getting weird things with mountain towns. All in all, I'd find interesting to be able to set the altitude of building hexes as well, meaning the top heigth at which it can be occupied and targetted.
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Well since this spans many OOBs I'll post it here, Idea for snipers, the single man sniper units are fine for WWII or 3rd world armies but not for modern US and NATO armies that have two man teams of snipers. Make western sniper units two man teams (the USMC OOB does this) but make the sniper rifle the second weapon (no weapon or grenades maybe a pistol or carbine/PDW of some sort as weapon 1) since the number of men in a unit multiplies weapon 1’s effectiveness. This gives the sniper units a simulated spotter who can also pick up the rifle and keep fighting if the sniper is killed.
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
"Well since this spans many OOBs I'll post it here, Idea for snipers, the single man sniper units are fine for WWII or 3rd world armies but not for modern US and NATO armies that have two man teams of snipers."
Well the soviets were using two men sniper teams during WW2. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Interesting...... we already have ample number of posts from people *****ing snipers are too hard to kill ( and an equal number from experienced players who say they aren't ) and here we have a request to double the difficulty.
This is another example of why, not matter what we do, someone will think it should be done a different way. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Don |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Well as I think about it more perhaps only snipers with vision greater than 15 should be made in to "teams". According to US Army manual FM 3-31-20 (The Infantry Battalion) teams are eather two or three men, Lead Sniper, Sniper and Driver/Spotter, with the Lead Sniper armed with a M16/M4, the Sniper with a sniper rifle, and the Driver/Spotter armed with a M16/M4 + a M203 GL.
Maybe sniper teams with vision greater than 15 should have three troops, weapon 1 as a M4, weapon 2 as a Sniper Rifle or Heavy Sniper Rifle, and weapon 3 as a M203 GL, weapon 4 could be hand Gernades. Or 1 as nothing, 2 as the Sniper Rifle, 3 as the M16/M4 x2 and 4 as an M203. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.