Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !

[DRG]

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.

**********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. It's a game design decision we made some time ago.

RecruitMonty said:
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.

Shellholes give cover and therefore , shells that make shellholes that give cover are shown in the game. 60mm mortars do NOT dig holes deep enough to give cover and therefore are not shown on the map when they land

Don

[thatguy96]

RecruitMonty said:
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.

I know this is only one source, but after reading Harry Yeide's "The Tank Killers" about WWII TDs, it seems clear that its really down the specific HE round used. There are anecdotes of TDs at close range having to fire multiple HE rounds just to make a hole big enough in a gutted stone house wall to use the structure as an improvised vehicle emplacement. It might be realistic to assume the shot is simply passing through without hitting anything hard enough to detonate it.

Also, a wooden house may appear rickety and really be so, but if you're not hitting load bearing structures and not hitting it with a round big enough to not really require good shot placement, it could likely take a surprising amount of damage.

Not entirely sure how true either of these points may be, but its something to chew on.

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. It's a game design decision we made some time ago.

Is there a way to change this? Not allow vehicles with sizes or weight over a certain number on terrain types? I understand you could do it by class, but I also understand that would be a prohibitive amount of work to make sure all the OOBs have the heavy tanks in the right class.

I only say this because the bridges not meant for 70 ton MBTs were a huge issue in places like Bosnia.

[Marek_Tucan]

thatguy96 said:
I know this is only one source, but after reading Harry Yeide's "The Tank Killers" about WWII TDs, it seems clear that its really down the specific HE round used. There are anecdotes of TDs at close range having to fire multiple HE rounds just to make a hole big enough in a gutted stone house wall to use the structure as an improvised vehicle emplacement. It might be realistic to assume the shot is simply passing through without hitting anything hard enough to detonate it.

Possible IMO, members of Cpat. Mackay's group from Arnhem specifically described how they were assaulted by Tiger II's - the tank was apparently firing Panzergranate only as the shells went through the entire building, leaving large holes in their path but not exploding.

[PlasmaKrab]

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.

Got to agree with everyone on this one. Even wooden bridges aren't supposed to be rickety (it would be fun if they could be, but hey) since they can carry any vehicle.
Regarding structure hexes, bear in mind that each hex is about 50m diameter, so blowing a "hole" through a hex or bringing down the whole block will require something more than a few direct-fire HE shells.

[RecruitMonty]

Then it would be better to do what "thatguy96" suggested with tanks and bridges. But the houses, come on. By 1946 I think most of the tank guns available to the allies (Sovs. incl.) could do serious damage even to stone houses. The High-end German stuff certainly could.

As for sounds, I found a load, Plasma seems to have also found a load, and no one ever asked for them. That's the trouble, no one ever asks. I have done in the past and all I got was... nevermind. Perhaps if someone would ask for them then maybe the changes, in that department, might begin taking shape.

Regarding craters etc, a cosmetic adjustment was what I was driving at. Still does not explain why houses remain undamaged by lighter artillery though, well it does (limit of the game code - no ground damage = no house damage) but still surely a way around this can be found. Buildings could benefit from a certain amount of visible damage from receiving lighter artillery damage. IRL if a house gets hit by a 60mm mortar round you need more than just a lick of paint to fix the damage.

[Marek_Tucan]

RecruitMonty said:
Then it would be better to do what "thatguy96" suggested with tanks and bridges. But the houses, come on. By 1946 I think most of the tank guns available to the allies (Sovs. incl.) could do serious damage even to stone houses. The High-end German stuff certainly could.

There were still houses standing in Stalingrad (though without roofs etc.) by 6th Army's capitulation...
And I doubt any tank gun would have such destructive effects as direct-fire sIG-33. With house demolitions, muzzle velocity and penetration is almost immaterial to you, amount of explosives is important. And even sIG-33 would have problems with large concrete/stone/thick-walled brick buildings, definitely it won't bring them down with one or two shots (as it would in SP) - and definitely not with indirect fire as it would have trouble hitting the building - as it is now the building suffers damage when anywhere in the 50-meter-wide circle including the building drops shell of required size. So I'd say buildings are (as with bridges) more fragile than they "should" be... I say leave them or reinforce them.

[RecruitMonty]

One, Stalingrad was 1942-43; two, I never said bring it down I just said damage it, you know make a nice whole in it and three what about the post WWII era units. You know the ones in SPMBT.

[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.