Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !

[Marcello]

DRG said:
**********Look, we allow 70 ton tanks to cross wooden bridges so there's the "rickety wooden structure" argument out the window. I could easily change the code to elliminate wooden bridges altogether and only place stone/steel ones ( my preference for the "Post WW2" world of MBT )but we left them in AND we ensured that an engineer squad with a satchel charge cannot take wooden or stone/steel bridges with one go as the game used to allow.

What about changing the "rickety wooden bridge" graphic to something else, like a pontoon bridge?
Wooden bridges (except dedicated gangways for pedestrians/cyclists)are relatively rare these days, at least in the parts of europe I traveled. And sure as hell none of them could support 50 tons MBTs. On the other hand I ran into a few pontoon bridges and at least the military grade ones could support tanks.

[Marek_Tucan]

Marcello said:
What about changing the "rickety wooden bridge" graphic to something else, like a pontoon bridge?
Wooden bridges (except dedicated gangways for pedestrians/cyclists)are relatively rare these days, at least in the parts of europe I traveled. And sure as hell none of them could support 50 tons MBTs. On the other hand I ran into a few pontoon bridges and at least the military grade ones could support tanks.

Or change the wooden bridges and dirt roads to "secondary" (bridges and roads)?

[Marcello]

Marek_Tucan said:
Or change the wooden bridges and dirt roads to "secondary" (bridges and roads)?

I don't get what you mean by "secondary". Personally I think that the current "dirt road" is fine: when I see it I think about unpaved but prepared roads, like gravel roads. For something even more basic, like simple vehicle trails, you can use bare earth; I have used this tecnique in one of my maps I posted here. The only objectionable thing is the wooden bridge, for the reasons already discussed. The pontoon bridge would be one solution, as it could also be useful to represent military bridges. Although thinkng about it it would have to be drawn is such a way that at least for single hex crossings it could pass itself off for a conventional bridge. This to represent all those small bridges crossing irrigation ditches on agricultural roads for which pontoon bridges would be inappropriate.

[Marek_Tucan]

RecruitMonty said:
Bridges should be easier to destroy. The wooden bridge especially. Tanks with 75mm plus guns firing on some rickety wooden structure with HE rounds should be able to make nice holes in the wooden houses too. I mean they aren't bunkers are they.

For my own conscience I don't take Wooden bridges as Wooden, but as Secondary or pontoon bridges (and even at that, rare due to their fragility) - mind you, each of these bridges will take Leopard - one hell of wooden structure that isn't going to be blown easily with random hits. Plus there's that argument that few bridges are 50 meters wide so that any shell that hits the hex can hit them and damage the enough to bring them down. So I'd say bridges are too fragile as they stand(then again, it's a long-time used value so I don't think it needs change, if I need a survivable bridge I can always build a land bridge).

Also the way damage to the map from mortars etc (lighter artillery) is frankly laughable. In reality anything of 60mm would leave a mark on the ground. I always find this so frustrating, there you are plastering an area with fire and the only evidence that you have done so is a bit of smoke. I think the cut off point should be lowered so that weapons with smaller warhead sizes can do more damage to the map. It's not just a question of aesthetics, its more realistic. In my opinion.

Would make sense if the damae was just cosmetical, but it does influence terrain properties and 60mm or 81mm mortar isn't going to destroy road or dig a crater wide enough for you to hide into So I'd say the WH effects are good as they are now...

[RecruitMonty]

"That's not players exploiting the game, that's players using real world tactics to feel out the air defense present.
There's not going to be a choice on OP fire in this game. Basically for the same reason I mentioned in my first answer in this post. It's a crew choice, not a player choice."

Not if they know that the stupid AA units will open up with everything they have on a piddly little recon plane.

[RecruitMonty]

I still think more sound work needs to be done. One of the most attractive features of a game like this are the weapon sounds, the more realistic and varied the better.

[DRG]

RecruitMonty said:
I still think more sound work needs to be done. One of the most attractive features of a game like this are the weapon sounds, the more realistic and varied the better.

You may be right, however, both Andy and I play the game with the sound off so what does that tell you about sound as a priority for us? Even when I do play with the sound on it's turned on low as "background ambiance". Would you spend hundreds of hours working on something you'll never use? There are ample sound slots still open in the sounds.ini and anyone so inclined could easily create new sounds, add them to the game and the OOB's but to date no one has bothered which I think says a lot about the general enthusiasm for the idea.

We've both being doing this for a long time. It'll be ten years for me come January 2008. We are currently upgrading SPMBT and then SPWW2 but we are at the stage that we are only devoting valuable time to things we feel strongly about and right now sounds and the upgrading of all the OOB's to accommodate those sounds are not on the list

Don

[JohnHale]

RecruitMonty said:
One of the most attractive features of a game like this are the weapon sounds, the more realistic and varied the better.

I agree.

Don/Andy - it's not like it's as important as the icing on the cake - nor even the cherry on top of the icing on top of the cake. But I do find that sounds add to the "ambience" of the game.

If it could easily be done (and I know I'm not the one doing the work so it's easy for me to say) I would welcome it.

Trivial, I know........

[Epoletov_SPR]

Immobilized Tank in Mud, in the house, etc.

To make rescue of the got stuck machines.
For example other tank or Engineer vechile could make it.

It only idea.

[Marcello]

"Immobilized Tank in Mud, in the house, etc.
To make rescue of the got stuck machines.
For example other tank or Engineer vechile could make it.
it only idea."

This can be done by inputting a 2XX value in the carry capacity parameter of said vehicle. I have already done it and it does work: you can load tanks stuck in collapsed building etc. and carry them away. The problem is that it works too fast compared to most real world situations.