.com.unity Forums - Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- TO&Es (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=108)

- - Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 ! (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=36566)

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !

Would it be possible/hard to allow a negative value for units. It would be useful for scenario designers - eg mission being to kill the soldiers but not the civilians without having the AI enemy mow down the civilians they are hidden among.

Also, if/when a next release is done could I suggest a "civilian" unit be included (probably in red and/or green).

And a 3rd suggestion - when editing specific units would it be hard to allow the unit class to be changed - for example changing a barge to a SP artillery class so it can fire that 105 howitzer you just added as indirect artillery?

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !

Quote:

Originally Posted by duff (Post 814598)

Also, if/when a next release is done could I suggest a "civilian" unit be included (probably in red and/or green).

The UN OOB already has civilians. I don't believe you will ever encounter them in generated campaigns against the UN but designers can add them into a scenario for any side using the "Allies" option in the editor.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !

Reposting the request from another thread:

Wish: Add movement class "Snow track" for units which are designed to drive in snow, mud and swamp. Give them the same bonus in those terrains as you give for snow vehicle class currently (Bv 206 and similar).

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmnt (Post 814704)

Wish: Add movement class "Snow track" for units which are designed to drive in snow, mud and swamp. Give them the same bonus in those terrains as you give for snow vehicle class currently (Bv 206 and similar).

What possible purpose would be served by duplicating that as a movement class?

Don

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRG (Post 814708)

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmnt (Post 814704)

What possible purpose would be served by duplicating that as a movement class?

Don

There are units which use the Bv 206 (or NA-140 or similar vehicles) as a base but are not of a class snow vehicle.

Finland - obat65:
Units 035-037 NA-140 Nasu TOW, Class 19 - SP ATGM
Unit 334 Nasu SP-Mortar, Class 38 - SP Mortar

Sweden - obat66:
Units 181-182 9cm PvPjbv 2062, Class 33 - Light Amphibian
Units 196-197 PvRbbv 2063, Class 34 - Heavy Amphibian
Units 200-201, PvPjbv 2062 56, Class 34 - Heavy Amphibian
Unit 231-232, Bv 202/206 Ammo, Class 56 - Ammo Carrier

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !

Here's the total list of what I could find. However I am not familiar with the configuration of BV's around the world so if they had narrower tracks or anything then this doesn't apply to them. Mostly I'm pointing at Chile here.

Netherlands, Italy and Chile probably could get their units reclassified as Snow Vehicles and be fine with it. If the change is doable in code without side effects then in my opinion it is worth doing.

Russia (and previously Soviet Union) has also had equipment similar to this, but seems to be missing from the OOBs. (http://www.army-technology.com/proje...acked-vehicle/ and http://www.unusuallocomotion.com/alb...yaz-dt-10.html )

Code:

      nation       | unit_no |      name       |         class         

-------------------+---------+-----------------+-----------------------

 Great Britain (7) |     383 | BV 202 Mortar   | 133 - Light SP Mortar

 Great Britain (7) |     384 | BV 202 Mortar   | 133 - Light SP Mortar

 Netherlands (28)  |     321 | Bv 202          | 33 - Light Amphibian

 Netherlands (28)  |     322 | Bv 206          | 33 - Light Amphibian

 Netherlands (28)  |     323 | BVS10           | 33 - Light Amphibian

 Netherlands (28)  |     385 | Bv 202 Ammo     | 56 - Ammo Carrier

 Netherlands (28)  |     386 | Bv 206 Ammo     | 56 - Ammo Carrier

 Norway (29)       |      35 | Bv 206N 81mm    | 38 - SP Mortar

 Norway (29)       |      37 | Bv 206N TOW     | 129 - Light SP ATGM

 Norway (29)       |      38 | Bv 202N ENTAC   | 19 - SP ATGM

 Italy (34)        |     203 | Bv 206 EI       | 33 - Light Amphibian

 Chile (59)        |     310 | Bv 206          | 26 - Utility Vehicle

 Finland (65)      |      35 | NA-140 Nasu TOW | 19 - SP ATGM

 Finland (65)      |      36 | NA-140 Nasu TOW | 19 - SP ATGM

 Finland (65)      |      37 | NA-140 Nasu TOW | 19 - SP ATGM

 Finland (65)      |     334 | Nasu SP-Mortar  | 38 - SP Mortar

 Sweden (66)       |      35 | Bgbv 120 Buffel | 37 - Engineer Tank

 Sweden (66)       |     181 | 9cm PvPjbv 2062 | 33 - Light Amphibian

 Sweden (66)       |     182 | 9cm PvPjbv 2062 | 33 - Light Amphibian

 Sweden (66)       |     196 | PvRbbv 2063     | 34 - Heavy Amphibian

 Sweden (66)       |     197 | PvRbbv 2063     | 34 - Heavy Amphibian

 Sweden (66)       |     200 | PvPjbv 2062 56  | 34 - Heavy Amphibian

 Sweden (66)       |     201 | PvPjbv2062 56TI | 34 - Heavy Amphibian

 Sweden (66)       |     231 | Bv 202 Ammo     | 56 - Ammo Carrier

 Sweden (66)       |     232 | Bv 206 Ammo     | 56 - Ammo Carrier

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dion (Post 814745)

Tunnels!

I'd love the idea of tunnels (and have thought about how great it would to have them), but I don't believe it's doable.

What I would do instead in map editor is to make a 1 hex line bordered by higher ground impossible terrain wherever I need the tunnel. The down side naturally is that there's no protection from attacks from above.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !

Why it isnt doable?

Just put a mountainous looking terrain with the name "tunnel", which is impervious to artillery and air attacks and more vulnerable to flame weapons. Units will still be visible to it.

Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aeraaa (Post 814775)

I'm a software developer, but not one for this game. Here's a list that comes to my mind:

1) Moving units should know whether they're on top of the tunnel or inside the tunnel. Can you move to hexes outside of the tunnel? How do you go in to the tunnel?

2) Spotting & visibility. How to prevent units in the tunnel from being shown? Is the tunnel a straight line?

3) Great number of changes in Map editor.

4) The concept of SPMBT is "2.5-D", that is that there's the height information but no "depth". It's just a two-dimensional surface with some rules. So a lot of things will be affected.

It just looks too big a change to do.