|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Quote:
IEDS are a regular day-to-day item in Terry Taleban's arsenal, however. Cheers Andy |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Thanks for the answer, and fair enough.
(Though I think it is safe to say that you would not approve at all of how I play sometimes. :D ) |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
These are ideas of my friend from S.P.R. : Muhail2
To it to not be registered in this forum, it tried, but unsuccessfully. --------------------------------------------------------- Greetings. I have recently played a streak of urban battles, involving different forces, mainly in modern period (80s-90s). At first it was a nice change from battles in somewhat open terrain, but as the battles progressed I found myself quite frustrated by the mechanics of close combat in cover in SPMBT. Let me describe the problems: From many field manuals I read (US and Soviet, mainly) I carried on the perception that urban fights are hard, time consuming and quite slow (in meters per hour, in comparison with "normal" maneuver battle). Small weapons fire and MG fire have almost no effect on the defenders of the building - it's even harder to surpress them. If one side wants to achieve decisive succes, they need to bring in really heavy guns, which can literally ruin the building on top the enemy soldiers, or courageously assault into the structure, using light and close combat weaponry in fierce room-to-room battles. In that assaults, experience and morale seem to play a decisive role. I remember reading that soviet assault engineers in WW2 (remember these guys in carapace armor and cool green-black camo?) were doing miracles with their special equipment and specialized training where standard units (although they were MANY more in numbers) were stopped to a halt. And what we have in SPMBT? Well, how should I describe it... Infantry racing from one building to another ("oh, Gawd, they wounded Kenny! We should immediatly pull back from this fortified stone bulding right into open plain!") after a single volley of automatic fire from 50 meters, with fast APCs following them and easily routing whole platoons with mere MG fire at close ranges. Special forces and engineers suffering greivous losses from simple reservists - just because they moved to 50m. Assaults? Supression fire? Forgeddaboudit. Just drop a few mortar rounds and rush in APCs to rout suppressed defenders. I'm exaggerating, of course, but you get the picture. What I suppose and what seems not so hard to implement from my consumer point of view: -MUCH lesser effect of small arms fire on defenders, even at 50m. A little supression before the close combat assault, nothing more. Stone buildings may even provide enough cover from projectiles such as RPG greandes and small caliber HE rounds. Big warheads are nice as they are, maybe make them a little more effecient to suit my taste =) -infantry clinging harder to their cover. I suppose no pullbacks until 50% casualties in squad, even more with great 80+ morale. That would make assaults necessary to achieve breakthough in urban combat. I never really had I chance to test current close combat mechanics in real game situations, so I wonder, what effect does experience has on them? Yes, many things from here can be also applied to combat in forests and jungles. That could really spice up vietnam scenarios. P.S. Oh, god! There are also fortifications in game! Trenches, foxholes! They could finally be more than simple "-X% to hitting ya". |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
We have discussed another issue at SPR and suggest improving the accuracy of supressive Z-fire.
At the moment, Z-fire is very dangerous at distances up to 5-6 hexes. Firing squad target a random hex in a big area around the target hex and thus is very likely to supress or even cause casualties in friendly squads. At distances of 1-2 hexes this becomes ridiculous. Z-fire can target a hex almost behind the firing squad. It's hard to believe a realworld unit would be spraying bullets and shells like this. If a unit is given a direct order to "supress that building" it won't spray through all the bushes in 200-meter area around it. To counteract improved accuracy, Z-fire can be made less effective in terms of supression points generated. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
On the last couple of posts.
Z fire agree it can be a bit to eratic up close if he cant see the target or is it. I mainly Z fire with heavy weapons MGs MTRs APCs & its reasonably acurate, squads only in rare cases burst at a tree line or hex I have recieved hidden fire from. If I can see the hex no problem heavy weapons seem more accurate (could be me) but if you cant see the hex what do you expect. Firing at a hex you cant see means fire traveling through a hex containing say trees buildings lots of both as its 50m so of course the fire can go anywhere its ricocheting everywhere. Could be handled a bit better fire normally ending up in adj to first dense hex crossed but think code was adjusted to allow in first place. Does the job for me giving the right feel, heavy stuff seems more effective as less prone to richochet & deters mass Z fire at targets out of LOS while still making mass Z firing at that tree line a worthwhile proposition just in case like WW2 USA used to do. Keeps Z fire what it is a poor substitute for arty with the exception of MGs & GLs which are very good at keeping heads down. In combination with the previous post where you call for less suppresion effects on units in buildings that would make Z fire totaly ineffective in town. On this post about town fighting how do you suggest improving. Hex is 50m thats normaly several buildings in a hex or you live in very big houses & 360 field of fire windows etc cannot be modelled. Artillery has little effect unless big guns for several turns at most blinding the troops so you can sneak adjacent unless lucky. 50m is for all intents & purposes assault range now you can target that window either spraying SMG fire tossing a grenade or hitting the head & shoulder you can see. This works well enough again giving the right feel allowing some form of tactics & all credit to the game you can tell the diffrence between diffrent troop quality. Try 60 vs 80exp or scarry 90 High experince troops less likely to be blinded by arty (poor inexperinced guys stopped looking when the shells fell & took cover) may have more shots & more likely to recover & gain a surprise one back if one of his mates does well (I think). Seem less likely to pullback & more capable of dodging incoming fire so taking less damage & fighting longer. Like I say try the above both ways its experince diffrence that is the worry attacking with 60 exp that arty you dropped means might have pinned yourself or if can move you are now blind & routed before even see the firer. Close quarters fighting is deadly should be avoided at all costs & especially if your experience is more than 5 worse than his. Do the same battle in open ground where you can start engaging at range & the better exp troops will take far fewer losses. You mention city fighting is slow WW2 & heavy weapons so do it that way, APCs are heavy weapons. Troops only no or very few vehicles now its pretty slow & painful. Or try it vs a human & lose those APCs to RPGs unless you are very careful. Yes there is less CC (in building) fighting than perhaps there should be but thats because the entire squad found windows to shoot out of & in game terms it makes no diffrence. Starting the next turn with 1 unit facing 3 or 4 units adjacent to it you would be crazy to take the shot pull out if you can. Thats why units in good cover & especially fortifications like trenches tend to stay put unless reasonably damaged & someone is adjacent & about to storm there location. Fortifications also do more than adjust to hit chances I think you get a rally benefit when in them which is why they nearly always recover & I take them over if possible & set up to let me attack the next lot from. If you can think of a better way to do this that works & gives the right feel I am all for it & agree that sometimes units bug out from an untenable position into a worse one leaving good cover & heading straight into open ground. If you have thought about where they will route to though you can have the reverse problem where the guys decide to stay put & go to their deaths. In woods this tends to work they fall back 2 hexes & hopefully recover if thats not where your arty is falling so the defensive line shifts. In Urban may well end up in the street unless you managed to find positions & thought about where they will head to. If you have isolated that city block with a MG down the road etc to stop reinforcing or better then they are in trouble. You can get a lot of squads just giving up & surrendering if do it right & think of this as did from there original hex. Perhaps except so many variables it would be nice if a unit that started in a building adjacent to a street exited & crossed the street into cover more often rather than running down it. As you know they do this denying the block being isolated is important & often fairly easy pre TI by placing smoke at junctions & units covering. This is your second line giving runners a chance to get there act together the normal 2 platoons forward 1 back dependant on terrain. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Muhail2:
You don't need to tell well known facts about Z-fire to me. I know that HMGs spraying at a tree-line some 400m from them do a nice job. I'm talking about z-fire at an unseen target 1-2 hexes away. Would real soldiers spray chaotically in almost 180 degree arc in front of them if they are ordered to supress "exactly this portion of treeline"? APC is a heavy weapon, enough to make a squad abandon a building? Please, tell this to veterans of Grozny, they'll make a good laugh. Most HMG's that are installed on APCs can, ocasionally, penetrate a wooden building. But a stone or concrete one? I doubt that. What I meant by "heavy weapons" in my post was something like a 125mm HE-FRAG or RPO-A. 50 meters in a city is not a close combat. There a lot of cover in real 100 meters (1+1 hexes) so both sides can exchange fire a lot before inficting some serious casualties. Moreover, think about the changes a little more. That would make fighting in the cities more complex: you'll have to fight for the whole city blocks. Let me explain it: Game terrain generation engine likes to make towns, cities and villages made of distinctive building blocks, from 5-20+ hexes of different structures, separated by roads or occasional square. Currently, it's not very important to control the whole block. It gives you no precise benefit. But if the infantry inside the buildings become VERY hard to supress and rout with fire, you'll really want not to allow enemy soldiers cross the road into your block! If they manage to establish a bridehead, they will basically start to fight on equal terms, which is not good, considering that assaulting side usually have more men. You must really consider counter-attacking and assaulting them in 0 hexes hand-tohand combat to restore control over the block. I don't know if it's very realistic or not, but that can give urban fighting that much-needed depth, that's currently lacking, |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
What I was refering to with Z fire at a hex you cant see is it normally passes through a dense hex like woods or buildings. The lighter the round the more susceptable to richochet even foilage will deflect it let alone hitting a tree.
If you fired into woods what percentage of those rounds do you think would miss all the trees & make it to where you are aiming if you cant see it. Most would be deflected or stopped I feel. I am classing APCs as a heavy weapon simply because they can maneuver to bring multiple units to bear even if they dont drop passengers. They can help force route by causing encirclement if the unit is now surounded on several sides. Like I say try it without vehicles. The distance is 50m NOT 100m hex centre to hex centre not edge 100m is fire with a hex seperating the two hexes. Call it 30-70m if you like 80m is the next hex. That being said 50m still offers plenty of cover in an urban setting part of what I think you are after may be due to scale & generic urban hexes. Concievably 2 squads in the same hex could easily still be in diffrent houses or 2 squads in adjacent hexes could be in the same room say a Factory floor with few lines of sight into from outside. Perhaps this is what you want a building that has a covered arc so can only fire from the windowed side. Should only be able to enter/exit from there to unless you make a hole. Not ideal but try using a bunker as a sort of seperate room. Its a question of scale & a very old game engine you should probably not really be able to fire that RPG & certainly not an ATG in a 360 degree arc from a building as probably need to change rooms. Now you have a reason to go room by room if the scale allows for doors windows etc. I need you to explain about holding the block & fighting on equal terms how you think this changes things as I think keeping people out of your block is important anyway & checking its clear is important before moving on. As the game works now 3 things normaly happen when adjacent in a city 1) Defender in building attacker in street probably moving. Good cover vs very poor cover & moving - big advantage to defender. 2) Both units in building attacker probably moving - slight advantage to defender Hence keep him out of your block as stated. 3) Enters enemy hex, if defender has shots this is nearly identical to 2 though the defender has a chance to suppress or hit himself. Several men in a confined space stray shots. So if he stays how does a unit entering its hex benefit the defender? As you said want to stop him in the street once he is in your block you are in trouble. This is what I am struggling to understand how it would change things. Also perhaps try playing on a pregenerated map where you can often give more covering fire to other blocks as they are not laid out American style but with windy roads & smaller blocks so stopping in the street tends to be easier. This will not really help the AI as a defender in fact probably the reverse as you take advantage of the aditional fields of fire but it helps a human defender. Another thing to try to achieve staying put is build fanatics say exp & morale at 100 but I would adjust Inf command or they will be crack shots. I think these will stay put longer. Some factors that might cause a unit to run. Being fired at especially from multiple directions or even seeing you are surrounded. Outnumbered the closer they are the bigger the threat. Freinds killed or decide to run. What causes him to stay is the reverse so if the street is litered with the enemy & burning APCs then despite all the above he still might stay. What situation do the defenders in your games see? |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Muhail2:
Ricochets are nicely simulated by small supression around the hex, which receives fire. What I'm talking about is the whole volley of all squad's rifles and MGs going somewhere far from the target. That can't be explained by an ocassional ricochet. By the way, I really doubt that a 120mm HEAT round can ricochet and go as far as 100m from the targeted hex. ;) But it does, in game. About the blocks: http://s002.radikal.ru/i198/1008/36/b14ec120f8ea.jpg With the current defence values, soviet platoon can easily rout the german soldiers back into the block and than some with plain fire across the road and than advance unopposed. All in 1 turn, 5-7 minutes. If you're lucky, 3 squads are even too much, 2 could've done the job just as well. With the proposed changes they'll have to bring down all the fire they can muster and then advance en-masse to sucessfully assault the enemy out of the block edge. 3 squads are the bare minimum to conduct this, just as in real life. And it will take 2-3 turns in most situations. You see? It just seems so very same at first, but the differences in the details are great. Urban combat can become a serious business =) BTW, that suggestion is based on the Squad Battles, which have a quite decent urban combat, though with flaws of their own, but I've taken them into account. Also, you don't need to go in details about rooms, levels and backyards. That's just not in the scale of SPMBT. Pregenerated maps with separated building hexes, as I understand it, were just made for the same purpose - to spice up the urban fighting. Or to represent a village with few houses. But these are pregenerated and are in minority. And I don't think we should take AI in consideration. It can't use 70% of SPMBT features, why bother with him now? |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Okay now I understand what you are talking about more, there may be a case for better protection adjustment not staying adjustment however if defender gains extra protection so does the attacker of course.
The situation you show lets assume no arty as if attacker has dropped defender should often have done likewise adding time. Attacking squads first have to get in position if no smoke or arty will definetly need 3 squads as first probably lost a couple of men. They probably can however take him down because he is a lone squad. If the defender has chosen terrain correctly though they will face say a platoon so it becomes difficult to get the 3-1 ratio first guys may not even see the defenders as move up before running back. As the game stands then the easist & safest way to take a block is at its corners normaly due to less defenders then roll it up. This also has the advantage of hopefully letting you isolate the block by getting behind it. The deffender of course is trying to stop this with covering fire from other blocks. So there are tactics & a slight increase in building terrain cover may improve them making a straight run at the block more dangerous. Hovever as the attacker gets these benefits to he will have less pinned units & so can coordinate attacks & get in position in the first place easier. So the problem is now both sides take less damage suppresion so getting your squads in position facing the road is easier for the attacker. If he now has 3 squads in position who take less suppresion whats to stop him using 2 to draw all opfire letting the 3rd who has suffered no suppresion due to stray fire nip across the street into his hex? Just thinking out loud this might make the attackers job easier as he has more good order units & will be subject to less surprise opfire shots as the defender cant lose suppresion it does not have. The Z fire I said that most shots including the HEAT round should stop in the first dense hex entered rather than bouncing most of the time. But its fudged old code you could not fire at a hex you cant see & I am fine with it for the little effect it has on the game. As you tend to use this when you have other units near to the hex you are Z firing like in a woods & you want to move adjacent it represents the fact you might hit them by mistake, yes its abstracted a bit but gives the right feel. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
To limit shooting in aircraft received before fatal damage.
Such example: S-300 gets in " IDS Tornado " - Damage = 250 point, but another S-300, and then and that that has got for the first time time shoot at this "Tornado" still. :re: The first aircraft rescues from AA-defence the others aircraft attacking in this turn. ================================================== ============ When vechicle immobilized above it appears specific smoke. It unmasks this vechicle (even if enemy has no LOS in it) and does by its desired victim. It is necessary to clean this smoke from winSP, as not realistic. Crew purposely shows all that it vechicle convenient immobilized target?! :) |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Thats some pilot if the plane took 250pts of damage & it still managed to carry out its attack.
Works exactly the same as fire at any other unit, hit & damage say a tank other units will continue to fire at it. Also with Sams that engage the plane before it fires in other words as enters the map they would already be in the air by the time the first hit anyway. Beyond the capability of the game but only way would be to have radar units linked & fire a set number at each plane regardless of whether the first one destroyed it or not. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
It is clear.
But the same SAM S-300 that the first has got in Aircraft then has shot once again the second rocket! Aircraft has turned to a dust and crew S-300 continues bombardment... |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Okay missunderstood sorry
Did the plane realy take 250pts & survive? Thought 15 or so would get even the hardiest (strongest) plane apart from perhaps some strategic bombers. Pressume the Plane moved or fired again then the SAM. My original statement still holds true though in real life the second SAM would have been fired while the first was in the air especially as its a strategic SAM so was really shot at a long time before it entered the map. Which is the thing do not take what happens quite so literallry (action by action) look at what happens in the whole turn & some odd looking things make a lot of sense. The game engine is one unit moves & others can react to it yet it approximates (comes near to) well tactics like an entire company breaking cover at once. Quite how I dont know but think of what all the units did that turn not individualy he moved before him, no he didnt or only fractionally it all happened in the same 3 minutes. I agree air defence can be bled but so can any unit without linked radar control cant see how to change that. If you want to approxomate AA selecting suitable targets have a house rule. Planes must be bought worse EW rating first to best last. That way when used AA fires at the easy targets first. Cant see it doing much though as can still send in high EW planes on there own to hopefully take & survive multiple fires. Also SEAD still need to be bought first & normally have high EW because of their mission so problems here unless they attack on seperate turns to the rest of the planes which is probably more realistic & easy enough using Gold Spots to clear the way. Side note Just lost a plane on a strafing run vs arty park, silly boy targeted the ammo dump instead of the arty pieces & got caught in the shock wave, aargh. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Was so:
Enter ' Tornado '-> ' S-300 ' strikes with damage = 250 points --> another rocket launcher ' S-300 ' (missed is properly that they have at the same time shot) --> ' Tornado ' move 1 hex --> Rocket launcher * 1 S-300 ' launch one more rocket --> ' Tornado ' damage 200 point (total 450 point) --> ' Tornado ' flame and down. Now mass attacks of the Air Forces are very effective are a problem. The first aircraft take away to themselves all AA-fire, rescueing that the others. If it is possible, it is necessary for correcting somehow. By the way, with helicopter is not present such: they at once destroy at sufficient received damage (there is no extra expense ammo at AA-unit). :clap: To make as for aircraft vs AA-unit. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Realise what you are saying about AA fire
Know not what you are asking but something is strange Tornado should I am pretty sure crash after 15 damage 250 blew it to bits there would be no wreckage, Strange. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Quote:
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
AA-weapon not less effectively, if progress of armed forces in the clashing countries equally, for example, USA vs RF. :fight:
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
What would be great is for HE rounds to have a chance in direct and indirect fires to score a direct hit on hard targets and thus achieve higher penetration.
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
I think they can, i usually kill light apcs by Z-Firing big HE into it, and arty can score direct hits on armor, scratch a few tigers with 155mm.
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Yes, it is effective enough, but from the blast damage, sometimes the destroyed tank is in another hex altogether. anyways, that is not the big issue.
what I would like to see is the HE rounds on howitzers having a discrete chance to directly hit in direct fires based on the FC and accuracy. Say I open up with a 122mm howitzer at 800 yards on a M113 APC, there could be two effects, 1, A discrete chance of achieving a direct hit, with in this case rather sever consequences, determined in the same way as if firing a heat round. 2, Failing this, a chance for blast and shrapnel hits determined by the shell size and HE kill, as per indirect fires. This is of course very similar to the duel use HEAT rounds on RPG's, and is also a sensible way to model APHE rounds. As you hinted above, the effect of arty in direct fire seems to be better when Z fired or into another adjacent target, when firing normally the actual target will almost never be hit, but the units in adjacent hexes will be busted up big time. Actually, when trying to hit a tank in direct fires i will often fire at a crew section nearby knowing the blast effect in the adjacent hex will be greater than the direct fire effects in the target hex. For indirect fires you could do the same thing, except the chance to achieve a direct hit would be determined by the target density and be rather low (tank is maybe a 15 square meter target, in a hex of 1750m/s, so very low chance to direct hit) This way you could model target scanning munitions as well, just bump up the chance for direct hits in indirect fires. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
you can have a direct hit in indirect fire, shoot a barrage of 155mm on a bunch of tanks, and you WILL get a 'top hit' message. and, from my point of view, a top hit is a direct hit to the top, that's what you meant right?
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
You know what would be great to have? A "deselect" key or something.
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Easy, just move the unit into enemy field of fire and it will quickly get deselected,no? ;)
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
To make a payload ammo carier limited.
================================================== == Will reduce quantity of bullets at MG-unit (for example instead of 90 to make 30-40). |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
I'd like to be able to go online in the game at setup, seek an opponent, set up a game and play it out online. Perhaps with timed turns either based on points used or by mutual agreement.
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Quote:
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Thus the timed turns. Don't need a half hour for a turn on a 2500/5000 pt game. I'd say 10 minutes/turn would be too long. I'd go along with only being allowed to specify preferences, mission, nationalities and time period. Computer to buy and deploy at which point you, the new guy just bussed in to replace the guy that got sacked at tea time get to hit the ground running. Can you do anything with the @$#% sandwich the computer hands you?
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Increase the number of weapons slots like you did with the Units and Formations slots. Some of the OOBs are close to full in this area.
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
We have this request at least once a year.
It is impossible to expand those variables without rebuilding the game from scratch. That's just the way it's put together and the way they interconnect with everything else and WHY they were not expanded years ago when we first started doing this. All save games would be buggered, all scenarios, all campaigns, everything would have to be redone. Don |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Then Maybe a new game? Like winSPMBT 1980. This would clear up some slots and give room to add more of the new tech in weapons and units.
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Would like to have a deployment zone AND a recon deployment zone say 10-20 hexes forward of the main deployment zone? It will then be possible to build a screen-line. during defense and delay opns and place recon elements forward of the main body.
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
How about reduced artillery effects in deep sand & snow?
(Although airbursts might be a complication.) Regards, Warwick |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Quote:
"Airburst" ammo is simply HE cluster in game terms. Cheers Andy |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Set up a test game with a custom map using those features and do a bombardment with blast effects on. You will see a reduced blast radius and as well the overall effect on soft targets is less
Don |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
First of all I'd like to thank the developers for creating such a masterpiece, it really is a game that if you play it once, you'll always come back for more.
I wish my first post wouldn't be a request but there is one situation that troubles me in each and every battle, enemies hiding inside buildings. I couldn't find any unit/tactic to counter this disadvantage. I understand that being invisible its a vital aspect in setting up ambushes and its realistic for the enemy to be invisible to my regular units while being static and not engaging me but specialized units like FOs, snipers or any kind of vehicles with high enough vision(>40) should be able to spot them even if they're hiding. Maybe not instantly, for eg. my unit should not move for 1-2 turns while looking in that direction or maybe add some kind of special ability... I don't know if anything can be done and this issue isn't of course a deal breaker but I would like to hear your thoughts regarding this particular inconvenience. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma...illie_suit.JPG It's realistic that people who are in good hiding and not moving are hard to spot. Let's suppose that you have thermal vision - even then you'd have to spot the tiny area where this person is exposed at your direction. I remember one cold Finnish night, we were among the first batch of infantry that got hands into TI equipment. During the night I many times thought I'd seen some movement behind the trees and rocks, turning my night vision equipment over there just to see nothing at all. My solution to your problem is to drop enough munitions to the area where I know or suspect the enemy troops to be. Rockets, especially CM, is good for that. |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Quote:
FO's really don't pay much attention to anything smaller then a platoon (unless it's shooting at them :shock:). Since their job is to hit target areas rather then specific targets. I know this because I use to be one ;) As to snipers or scouts, yea, they should, and do get a bonus to spot stuff (check the game manual). |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Quote:
- If in own formation, they usually have a small experience bonus. Experience counts in spotting. But 3 points is neither here nor there. It may just tip the element over a limit though. - They tend to be size 0 elements, so can get a hex or 2 closer without themselves being spotted, but usually being able to see size 1 elements fine. (Always provided that you remember to move them 1 hex at most, perhaps on alternate turns if you think defenders are within ~500m. Movement is about the biggest give-away to being spotted.) Thermal Imaging sights (40+ vision) can spot infantry type elements a few hexes further away than plain vanilla vision as well. But generally speaking - if you suspect the enemy is in an area, dust it down with arty. Arty is an area fire weapon after all - and delousing is part of it's job description. Andy |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Quote:
What it does say is this Quote:
Don |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
In WinSP not so well is visible a relief, to especially beginning players who have not got used to game. :pc:
I offer "slope" to display other color (it is On./Off. in preference). Or somehow differently to facilitate reading map. :bow: |
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:
|
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:
What possible purpose would be served by duplicating that as a movement class? Don |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Quote:
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 |
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Tunnels!
|
Re: Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !
Quote:
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:
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. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.