Quote:
Siddhi said:
A couple of SPMBT (different) design issues that I recently grappled with in designing a scenario. I would be interested in comments.
i. vehicle movement in broken terrain
This has probably been addressed many times already, but I would like to know what the rational (gameplay?) was behind the current vehicle movement capability in broken or restricted terrain. Basically: why tanks (let alone wheeled APCs) can cross wooded terrain. They can't. Not even close, especially if it an old wood / heavily forested. Even a "young" wood with saplings can be dangerous, slipped tracks and lack of traction on broken wood will immobilise most tanks even under these circumstances pretty quickly. Designing a scenario (as I recently did in an upcoming scenario on Wargamer, SPANNOCHI'S DREAM II) with "impassable" terrain as a base for the wood only goes so far, the AI will still try it.
|
******See Andys answer. "wooded areas" can vary widely. I live on a wooded lot . From the road it appears quite dense, from inside there are plenty of places a tank could drive through (at reduced speed) and there are areas that driving a tank through would most definitely NOT be a great idea. However,given the scale of the game a 50x50 metre area allows a lot of leeway and SP has always allowed entry to these areas with movement penalties and for general game play there are generally no further restrictions but a speed reduction. Sceanrio designers, on the other hand, have map terrain provided in the game that can be placed under treed hexes that can achieve the type of "forest" you desire. Anything from rough to impassable to swamp or mud. All of those can be placed on the map along with trees to restrict movement of vehicles though forested terrain
Quote:
Siddhi said:
ii. Fortifications
Totally different database issue. For a scenario I felt I had to completely "redo" some of the bunker emplacements in the database; although the armament was mostly correct the hit ratios were much lower then they should have been. To accurately simulate a 1m reinforced conrete, I had to radically raise armour ratios - also, the "turret" rating had to be raised higher then it probably is as the "turrent" in an embunkered position is effectively just the firing slit, i.e. 25-30% of the size of a normal "turret". The size had to be decreased from 2 to 1 to give the bunkers a chance of survival, given that concealment is such a major issue for bunkers I thought it sensible.
|
******I'm with Andy on this one. I really don't understand the point you are trying ot make. First you talk of hit ratios then "radically raise armour ratios ". Two very different issues. There are HUNDREDS of bunkers and fortifications in the game. You don't even hint at which ones you felt the needed to alter. Bunker sizes vary quite a lot, from zero to 4 depending on whim of the OOB designer who put them in . There are plenty that are size 1 already
Quote:
Siddhi said:
iii. vehicle size
Something I have been unable to address but which detracts from gameplay is the none-modelling (as far as I can tell) of different tank sizes, leading to incorrect hit ratios. The T-55 e.g. is a full 40% smaller then a m60 front aspect, how can you have the same hit ratios for it? Many tanks were designed specifically to have a small front aspect, e.g. the Swedish assault-gun type construction of the 1970s with a fixed turrent.
I have a couple more but would be interested to hear if these issues
|
"none-modelling" ?? Really ?? Well let's look at that. ....
A T-55 is 6.45 metres long, 3.2m wide and 2.4 metres tall and is given a size rating of 4 in the game. The M60 is taller and wider and is rated at size 5. An M2 Bradley is very close to the same size as a T-55 and is given a 4 rating as well. The Stridsvagn 103 ( the S-tank ) is as wide as an M60 but only just slightly over 2 metres high and is given a rating size of 3 . When all three of those tanks are placed as targets on a "test firing range" sceanrio and fired at ( in my case with a Challenger 2 ) from 25, 35 and 50 hexes ( or 1250, 1750 and 2500 metres range ) in
all cases from
all ranges the larger M60 produced higher to hit chances than the T-55 and the T-55 produced higher to-hit chances than the Stridsvagn so just where is the "none-modelling" you speak of in the game?. This test was standardized so that all the firing crews had 80 experience and 75 moral and the leaders "armour command "ability was set to 75 for each tank. Perhaps your test had wildly varying moral, experience or ability ?
Here are the reported accuracy results ( the "to-hit" chance ) of the three target tanks at the three ranges in the test I just ran with the standardized crew ratings
25 hex range
Stridsvagn 103 ( size 3 )-- 73% T-55 ( size 4 )--78% M60 ( size 5 )-- 80%
35 hex range
Stridsvagn 103 ( size 3 )-- 64% T-55 ( size 4 )--69% M60 ( size 5 )-- 73%
50 hex range
Stridsvagn 103 ( size 3 )-- 34% T-55 ( size 4 )--37% M60 ( size 5 )-- 40%