Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !

[narwan]

Some answers and opinions of my own;

Epoletov_SPR said:

The ability to pick which kind of shell is being used when in combat (HE, AP, HEAT etc) would be very much appreciated. Being able to choose which kind of ammo the tank, anti-tank gun etc can fire would avoid less effective rounds being automatically picked (a less powerful AP shell being picked over a more powerful HEAT shell).

Besides the coding problems of introducing this, I don't agree. I would make for a worse game. Introducing this option would give the player micro-control over what happens in a specific unit itself. Ammo picking should be left to the 'crew' and governed by unit experience and crew skills, not player choice. Picking the wrong ammo and wasting rounds is a realistic part of combat and should stay.

Epoletov_SPR said:
The infantry would look better dug-in in the round, as in other versions of the game (SPWAW – I’m fully aware that SPWAW uses a different version of the original, but…).

If you mean as opposed to foxholes I don't agree on this one either. Infnatry looks much better in the foxholes than in the round entrenchments.

Epoletov_SPR said:
To modernize op-fire filter, having entered a choice for shooting on aircraft.

There already is a choice in the OP filter screen for shooting at aircraft or not so what is it you're asking for here?

Epoletov_SPR said:
To increase the cost of transport helicopters with weapons (those only equipped with MGs). Now they seem quite unstoppable, are affordable and they are no less effective than the attack helicopters.

Uhhh, are you playing the same game as I am? These transports drop as flies in modern games; I find them barely cost effective as they are. If you're referring to environments with very little AA these sort of craft should be powerful; it's what they're designed for. The problem there isn't the cost of the craft but the lack of the appropriate gear on the other side.

Epoletov_SPR said:
To make it impossible for units to be renamed during a battle. People take advantage of this during “Play by e-mail” etc. At the very least some sort of name and shame on the forums would be good. Still prevention is the best way to handle it.

Setting rules before the game helps to some degree as would not playing those people again. They'll soon run out of opponents to play! Remember they can't change the name of the weapon system they're firing with (top screen) so that's some help.
Not being able to change unit names in a game might create some new problems (scenario design, editing scenario's for example) so I'm not sure if this would be a good idea even if possible.

Epoletov_SPR said:
Helicopter movement could benefit from some tweaks too. If the Helo becomes dispersed, as it often does in heavy combat, then some sort of movement restrictions should be placed on it. At certain speeds too similar restrictions should be placed on it. No sharp turns, no turns in place (in the hex it is in) and only an 180o (90o left and right) turn radius. So the helicopter can turn left and right (just about) r carry on forward but can’t carry out some stunning high speed manoeuvre, especially if the crew is supposed to be suppressed. Applying the same movement rules as barges would be a step in the right direction.

This has been mentioned int he past and the answer to date has always been that it's a game for GROUND combat. It was never meant nor is able to model aircraft as realisticly as it does ground units. The work involved in changing that would effectively mean writing a new game. Which would probably be easier to.

Epoletov_SPR said:
To make guided artillery shells.

Which means what? Even more accuracy to artillery fire?

Epoletov_SPR said:
To reduce the radius of suppression (Z - button) for MGs to 1 hex (now 2 hex).

This I absolutely disagree with. This 2-range Z-fire is one of the very best features in the game. And realistic.

Epoletov_SPR said:
An increase in the number of weapons (4 --> 5,6,...) available to units, if feasible, would also be welcomed by many.

Not feasible unfortunately.

Epoletov_SPR said:
Thermal imaging equipment should either be made more expensive or less efficient. Units with the ability could have an increased cost penalty. The system itself could be recalibrated so it is less accurate or at the very least is subject to a tighter/smaller maximum effective range. Now many players do not wish to play past the eighties. There is an assumption, that in WinSPMBT Thermal Imaging is too effective (gives huge advantage).

There is a huge cost increase for TI units. And it is HUGE. And TI is very effective in real life so why shouldn't it be in the game? The vision range in the game is even less than it is in reality.
As to not wanting to play beyond the 80's by some players, that's not because of the game but because modern day combat in real life is so fast and accurate as to be not much fun.
So with regards to TI I'd say: don't blame the messenger (the game) for the message that TI is the superior system on the field in the real world.
But then again, I think this discussion was done months ago.

Epoletov_SPR said:
The Op-fire filter could do with some tweaking too. For example lighter reconnaissance aircraft, when deployed, have the habit of soaking up AA fire so that a smart player who knows the exploits will purchase a few recon planes (UAVs etc) then send them in watch them blow up and then later send in his Jets and make merry hell. The ground AA wastes its ammo on the recon planes. One suggestion would be to make sure recon aircraft (which I believe are size zero in-game) can’t be targeted. If they, the recon planes, have to be targeted then it would be better if AA MGs and so on were tasked with such work and not the heavier stuff. Quite frankly I think you should have the option to say yes or no to Op-fire be it on aircraft or on ground units. It would make things a little more manageable. Most of the problems encountered in-game are normally down to the willy-nilly application of Op-fire anyway. You should be given the choice, at least with AA defence.

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.

[DRG]

FYI two points we have already dealt with in the code are:

1} the immobilizations of tank in trenches has been reduced IF the unit does not attempt to cross them at full speed. Stopping first then crossing will be the best way to deal with these

and

2) Crews were getting too much smoke. This had never been brought up before but some crews could be carrying up to 5 smoke grenades. Andy and I discussed various options and decided that one per crew is a satisfactoy compromise.


Many points made either we don't agree with ( like the TI being undervalued or choosing shell type or the MG 2-hex Z-fire beaten area) or are impossible to code without destroying existing save games and scenarios ( increased weapons slots ) or just simply don't understand ( numbering the later scenarios when the sceanrio slots are automatically numbered now ) but we do encourage everyone to discuss these points.

Don

[RecruitMonty]

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.

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.

[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.

[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)?