SPMBT and SPWaW

[RCAC_sharpshooter]

A suggestion: Base the next version of SPMBT on the SPWaW engine. SPWaW has a new, more realistic armour combat system, an awesome C2 system, and the opfire confirm option is both more realistic and makes both halves of the turn exciting for the player.

[junk2drive]

You must be new to all of this. Aint gonna happen.
The short story, the Camo group got this engine, Matrix got the other. They aren't interchangable.
Matrix is not going to make a modern version. They tried years ago.
Wait for WinSPWW2, play them all, and enjoy them differences.

[Rich]

I played spwaw for years and mbt for a shorter time. Re waw, imo, the c2 is not all that good. In fact it seems most players turn it off. The opfire confirm is tedious especially on larger scenarios. The armor combat system is a matter of personal taste, at least in mbt armor can back up. I said on the matrix and spwaw forums a long time ago, when this project was first announced, that spww2 would likely make waw obsolete. From the looks of mbt I will likely be called a prophet.

[RCAC_sharpshooter]

Yes, I am new. If you had looked at my registration date, you would have seen that.
Regarding the armour combat system, SPWaW uses the actual armour thickness when calculating shot penetration, while SPMBT uses armour ratings, if I am not mistaken.
An option for the C2 system found in SPWaW would be cool, because I like being able to change the combat stance of my troops. For those who don't like it, they could just turn it off.
I enjoy using opfire confirm because it allows me to choose wether to fire or not. Sometimes it is important not to fire yet, because you don't want to give away your position. The "special" and "return" opfires found in SPWaW are also very neat and should be considered for inclusion in SPMBT.

[narwan]

Armour thickness is based on actual armor in SPMBT (taking slope into account etc). If you're referring to the mm vs cm debate (which it basically is), visit the yahoo spww2 group. It's been debated to death here.

You do realise that you can determine the range at which your units will op-fire and you can toggle weapons off to prevent them from firing? And units do tend to fire back when fired at even when the attacker is beyond the designated reaction range?

[DRG]

RCAC_sharpshooter said:
Yes, I am new. If you had looked at my registration date, you would have seen that.

"junk2drive" meant the overall debate which has been going on for 6 plus years now.

RCAC_sharpshooter said:
Regarding the armour combat system, SPWaW uses the actual armour thickness when calculating shot penetration, while SPMBT uses armour ratings, if I am not mistaken.

You are mistaken. WinSPMBT uses centimetres of armour not millimeters. That's not in any way a "rating system". Measuring in centemetres accomplishes the same thing as millimetres when the game calculate armour penetration and mixes in the penetration variables. Some people still think having the game report armour and penetration in millimetres is "more accurate" but it's not in game terms.

RCAC_sharpshooter said:
An option for the C2 system found in SPWaW would be cool, because I like being able to change the combat stance of my troops. For those who don't like it, they could just turn it off.

"Stance" is one of the least requested of the SP3/WaW features. Like " count on the fingers of one hand and have fingeres left over" requests. If your used to it from playing WaW then of course you will miss it but few do and we have no plans to add it.

RCAC_sharpshooter said:
I enjoy using opfire confirm because it allows me to choose wether to fire or not. Sometimes it is important not to fire yet, because you don't want to give away your position. The "special" and "return" opfires found in SPWaW are also very neat and should be considered for inclusion in SPMBT.

Can the AI use it against a human opponent? No, it cannot. Opfire confirm is a "cheat" against the AI. It puts the computer opponent at a further disadvantage because it does not have that option to exercise. I have tried it and can see why people like it but the fact remains it makes the game easier for the human opponent to beat the AI and that's why it isn't and won't be, included in our games

Don Goodbrand

[troopie]

In both game engines 255 is the maximum value for anything. That means in SPWAW the maximum thickness of armour is 25.5 centimetres. Tanks exceeded that decades ago. In SPMBT the maximum thickness of armour is 2.55 metres. It will be decades or centuries before armoured vehicles will have armour rated that thick. You would have to use collapsed matter or something.

About five years ago, Matrix began development of SP: Modern Warfare. They came up against that, and a number of other problems, and the game was never finished. PM Wild Bill and he might tell you and he might not. I would never presume to speak for Kol. Wilder.

I play both and don't want to get involved in slanging matches about the game.

Geseende Kersfees.

troopie

[wulfir]

RCAC_sharpshooter said:
A suggestion: Base the next version of SPMBT on the SPWaW engine.

Good God, no!

SPWAW is nowhere near as sophisticated as SPWW2 (or SPMBT).