Improvement proposal I - OP fire draining

Artur · #1 February 3rd, 2006, 07:31 PM

Cameronius,

Well, I cant's argue with someone who has real military experience can I?

I accept that such control is not present in RL as it is in most of the wargames.

But seriously, this god-like control exists even with or without this debated feature isn't it? If it was not you could not turn weapons on and off. You would not be able to shoot with your units at the desired sequence to use at your best advantage etc. In SPWaW there is a command and control system which uses command points to set new waypoints to a platoon and to limit the maneuvre possibilities and there are command points used up for even changing attack and defense stances! I would be happy to have such in WinSPMBT but the required work is several magnitudes more than the implementation of this feature.

Put your hand on your heart and tell is it really this feature that makes such a huge difference in the level of control? IMO it does not.

However, if the designers of the game cannot make it possible for the players to make the decision about the target type a unit would fire at, I would suggest to leave the OP-fire routine as it is now.

Artur.

Artur · #2 February 3rd, 2006, 07:42 PM

Gents,

What I really would like to know is that is there anywhrere on Earth an army which trains the following tactics:

1. Moving the ingfantry in the open and follow by tanks in order to make the enemy armor to fire at the infantry?
2. Exercising the armored scout car and APC crews to speed up to maximum and make short dashes in the open to draw the fire of the enemy armor or other guns?

Artur.

Artur · #3 February 3rd, 2006, 08:25 PM

OK Gentlemen,

It looks like we have debated this feature from a lot of aspects. I posted on other forums in order to have as much opinions as possible on this.

Of course Don and Andy will decide if they ever wish to implement such a feature.

But it would be very good to have the opiniuon of the over-all community to see if this feature is needed or not.
I ask everyone who reads this thread but does not wish to add more reasons into this debate to say a simple yes or no.
(Some more supporters are welcome

)

I promise I will not argue on this any more I think I said what I wished to say. I thank those who debated on this feature with logical reasons disregarding whether they support this idea or not. Narwan has pointed out some weaknesses which made me think about it and refine my proposal a little more.

Artur.

narwan · #4 February 3rd, 2006, 08:26 PM

Isn't nr 2 just another way of describing recon by contact? And isn't that an age old tactic? It's like taking turns taking point on a patrol. Except you don't let the guy with the only radio take point. He's not expendable (wel, his radio isn't). If there is risk of taking fire when moving out, it's not uncommon to move more expendable assets first.

And as to the level of control, it's because of the detailed, god-like, control you have during your own turn that is is such a great addition to have only limited control during the opponents turn. It offsets the very unrealistic amount of control to some degree and introduces some randomness, uncertainty and murphyism that any game which strives to be a realistic simulation of combat needs. That's my view at least.

Narwan

Edit: Artur, I typed this before I saw your last post. It's been a good debate, made me think about the game and it's features some more.

junk2drive · #5 February 3rd, 2006, 08:32 PM

I like the game the way it is.
In SPWAW I leave op fire confirm off.

Bulletmagnet · #6 February 3rd, 2006, 11:54 PM

Cameronius,

SO what your saying there trooper is that its a good thing the Iraqies didnt have a lot of Bmp's and jeeps at 73East or we would have had alot of dead M1A1's ? Hardly.

Why cant a experience check be added to the firing routine for a unit to check to use the proper mg vs soft or cannon vs hrd targets? At least this the best of both worlds and not too much coding.

Thexder · #7 February 4th, 2006, 06:14 PM

I have to say that I'm with Artur on this one. It's annoying to play against a player that drains the OP-fire with jeeps or cheap APC's. Although most players wont do this (well, maybe they regard it unchivalry) and this can be countered by, for example, reducing the amount of jeeps etc. But the fact that these kind of rules must be made in order to achieve the best possible gaming experience is telling that there's something wrong.

If its achievable within the code, I would gladly accept that one could have the option of setting units to fire only some unit classes ignoring others. This could be combined by some kind of distance option within which the unit would fire anything that moves. These options would greatly improve the use of especially tanks and ATGM's. It would also be nice to use it with infantry that has AT-weapons.

As for being "unrealistic", this is not true. It's only realistic that wellhidden tank doesn't waste the element of surprise to a worthless jeep. Of course, if it's possible in code, some randomness can be added to simulate cracking nerves etc. But all in all the "Commander God" -element of the game is in itself so unrealistic that it's useless to even try to make the game one to one to real life. And the arguments that suggests that current situation is only realistic are, IMHO, pretty weird.

WinSPMBT is a great game and with honest (chivalrous) opponents this problem is much smaller than it is against the opponents whose only goal is to win without any style. But even so the suggestion that Artur made has my support.

Cheers,
Jukka

Artur · #8 February 4th, 2006, 06:37 PM

Man how good it is to read this

. I could not agree more

.
Thanks Thexder!

Artur.

PS: (It has been said before that jeeps do not drain Op fire but the cheap ACs and APCs do...)

Cameronius · #9 February 7th, 2006, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Bulletmagnet said:
Cameronius,

SO what your saying there trooper is that its a good thing the Iraqies didnt have a lot of Bmp's and jeeps at 73East or we would have had alot of dead M1A1's ? Hardly.

Bulletmagnet,
Where did I say this? What is your point here?

Double_Deuce · #10 February 7th, 2006, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Bulletmagnet said:
SO what your saying there trooper is that its a good thing the Iraqies didnt have a lot of Bmp's and jeeps at 73East or we would have had alot of dead M1A1's ? Hardly.

It is true IF you take it in the context of the game. Virtual soldiers show no fear, and don't hesitate to have their vehicles driven straight into enemy line of fire, even after watching 30 of their comrades destroyed one after the other.

However, what if the iraqi crewman were all suicide bombers and had 100(+) Jeeps/Bmps all loaded with the equivalent of 1000lbs of TNT and rigged to explode on contact with our vehicles? Could have been a different outcome.