m10bob,
Fair enough. But I don't know what observation you are referring to.
In an earlier post you stated that you wanted size 1 vehicles put back into the game. I replied that size 1 vehicles presented serious game-balance and exploit and abuse issues. Issues serious enough that the man behind the curtain at Matrix changed all size 1 vehicles into size 2 vehicles, and made size 2 the default minimum size for vehicles. This happened several years ago sometime around version 7.1 And this did indeed solve the problems, even though I opposed the change at the time. At the time I absolutely wanted my size 1 vehicles so I could take advantage of the game.
Over the years I have finally recognized the wisdom of the man behind the curtain at Matrix who solved the problem and made the game better by making size 2 the default minimum for vehicles. I was wrong to argue for my size 1 vehicles so I could abuse the system, and he was right to make the change to size 2 minimum default vehicle size. I see this clearly now.
Which brings me back to wondering what observation you are referring to.
Some Observations
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
RE: Some Observations
Size 2 vehicles make the game play better. That is a fact. It is a fact because it eliminates the game-play imbalances and exploits and abuses created by size 1 vehicles.
Opinion. Some may feel that it makes the play worse. Since everyone's view of what makes play 'better' is vaild for them, and likely differs between players, then this statement is subjective opinion, not fact.
[:'(]
I agree that size two for vehicles is better, by the way. [:)]
Goblin
RE: Some Observations
Goblin,
The man behind the curtain at Matrix who changed all the size 1 vehicles into size 2 and made the default minimum size for vehicles 2 (I'm guessing Paul Vebber) was convinced that that was the right thing to do to make the game play better by eliminating game-play abuses.
Since I argued in favor of size 1 vehicles several years ago (I hated the size 2 jeeps because I had a harder time abusing the game), I certainly have looked at this issue from both sides.
After heated debate and argument several years ago (and I was one of the loudest and most obnoxious advocates of retaining size 1 vehicles as you might well imagine), the man behind the curtain at Matrix decided that the game-play abuses using size 1 vehicles was a fact, not an opinion. And as I said, I've spent a long time sitting on both sides of this fence. And I assure you that I was pissed off for a long time when my beloved size 1 jeeps and kubelwagens were made size 2.
But I am 100% certain today that size 1 vehicles absolutely results in game-play abuses. I know this for a fact. And here is why this is a fact and not an opinion.
When a size 1 infantry unit moves, it becomes MORE vulnerable not less vulnerable. But when a size 1 vehicle moves, it becomes LESS vulnerable not more. And the faster a size 1 vehicle moves, the less and less vulnerable it becomes until it reaches a point where it is almost impossible to hit. The possiblities for abuse here are immense. I know this for certain because I've done it. Even disregarding the obvious abuse of drawing enemy op-fire shots using invulnerable size 1 vehicles, I have driven size 1 jeeps down roads completely through enemy positions and gaining all that valuable recon (just load a scout team or, even better, a sniper into your invulnerable jeep and unload him at various key locations to look around as you leisurely tour the enemy positions). It's been a while since I've used size 1 jeeps (although I have fond nostalgia), but I think I could remember other abuses given enough time to think about it.
Anyway, size 1 vehicles will result in game-play abuses. That's a fact.
EDIT: Just remembered another abuse using size 1 vehicles. You are touring the enemy countyside in your invulnerable jeep when you come across an enemy pillbox in a position overlooking your route of advance. Simply unload your sniper and pop off a smoke round in front the pillbox, thus securing your route of advance safely and simply.
The man behind the curtain at Matrix who changed all the size 1 vehicles into size 2 and made the default minimum size for vehicles 2 (I'm guessing Paul Vebber) was convinced that that was the right thing to do to make the game play better by eliminating game-play abuses.
Since I argued in favor of size 1 vehicles several years ago (I hated the size 2 jeeps because I had a harder time abusing the game), I certainly have looked at this issue from both sides.
After heated debate and argument several years ago (and I was one of the loudest and most obnoxious advocates of retaining size 1 vehicles as you might well imagine), the man behind the curtain at Matrix decided that the game-play abuses using size 1 vehicles was a fact, not an opinion. And as I said, I've spent a long time sitting on both sides of this fence. And I assure you that I was pissed off for a long time when my beloved size 1 jeeps and kubelwagens were made size 2.
But I am 100% certain today that size 1 vehicles absolutely results in game-play abuses. I know this for a fact. And here is why this is a fact and not an opinion.
When a size 1 infantry unit moves, it becomes MORE vulnerable not less vulnerable. But when a size 1 vehicle moves, it becomes LESS vulnerable not more. And the faster a size 1 vehicle moves, the less and less vulnerable it becomes until it reaches a point where it is almost impossible to hit. The possiblities for abuse here are immense. I know this for certain because I've done it. Even disregarding the obvious abuse of drawing enemy op-fire shots using invulnerable size 1 vehicles, I have driven size 1 jeeps down roads completely through enemy positions and gaining all that valuable recon (just load a scout team or, even better, a sniper into your invulnerable jeep and unload him at various key locations to look around as you leisurely tour the enemy positions). It's been a while since I've used size 1 jeeps (although I have fond nostalgia), but I think I could remember other abuses given enough time to think about it.
Anyway, size 1 vehicles will result in game-play abuses. That's a fact.
EDIT: Just remembered another abuse using size 1 vehicles. You are touring the enemy countyside in your invulnerable jeep when you come across an enemy pillbox in a position overlooking your route of advance. Simply unload your sniper and pop off a smoke round in front the pillbox, thus securing your route of advance safely and simply.
RE: Some Observations
Your original post stated 'better'. That is opinion.
I would argue that the statement, "Anyway, size 1 vehicles will result in game-play abuses. That's a fact." is also opinion, since the individual player decides what is 'abuse' and what is not. If a player likes playing with size one units, and uses them in their intended roles, he may not view it as abuse, thus the statement is not fact, but opinion based on your viewpoint, not his.
As I stated, I agree with you on the sizes, but the word 'fact' is not correct, as you merely state a viewpoint, not a fact (like Jeep is spelled 'Jeep', which is a statement of fact).
Also, I just wanted to pick on you some, Victor.
[:'(]
I would argue that the statement, "Anyway, size 1 vehicles will result in game-play abuses. That's a fact." is also opinion, since the individual player decides what is 'abuse' and what is not. If a player likes playing with size one units, and uses them in their intended roles, he may not view it as abuse, thus the statement is not fact, but opinion based on your viewpoint, not his.
As I stated, I agree with you on the sizes, but the word 'fact' is not correct, as you merely state a viewpoint, not a fact (like Jeep is spelled 'Jeep', which is a statement of fact).
Also, I just wanted to pick on you some, Victor.
[:'(]
RE: Some Observations
Goblin,
I understand you are poking fun.
My point is that even today with size 2 Jeeps and kubelwagens, the Depot ACL has strict 'abuse guidelines' regarding the use of vehicles to draw enemy fire and other such abuses. So abuses are indeed recognized as fact and not opinion.
But with size 1 vehicles the abuses become far worse. You can actually hit a size 2 Jeep sometimes.
Consider involuntary retreats by your Jeep that you have no control over. Even by accident the size 1 Jeep can create game-balance problems. Or consider you are playing PBEM and your finger accidentally slips on the mouse (and this has happened to everybody) and your size 1 Jeep goes racing into an unexplored region and triggers all sorts of events. At least with a size 2 Jeep the effects of these kinds of game-balance accidents are minimized since the size 2 Jeep might get destroyed before the game-balance is seriously compromised.
I realize that you are not arguing with me here and that we are quibbling over semantics. But if enough people have the same opinion, then that collective opinion can be turned into fact (such as the Depot ACL 'abuse guidelines' recognizing as fact that certain game-play abuses are truly facts and not opinions). And clearly the man behind the curtain at Matrix who changed the default minimum size for vehicles to 2 recognized the abuses of size 1 vehicles as fact also and not opinion.
I'm willing to let this go now if you want.
EDIT: Ah, now I see what you are saying. I used the word 'better' in a post up above. The choice of that word was based on the concept that a game is, as an actual fact, better if it has fewer opportunities for abuse. And in terms of the gaming collective, this is actually a fact. An analogy: Our society sees murder as wrong, and that's a fact (our society does in fact see murder as wrong). So, in our society less murder is better. That's a fact. Now there are individuals within our collective society who disagree with our collective society and see nothing wrong with murder. But that doesn't change the fact that our collective society sees less murder as better than more murder. This analogy can be applied to game abuse in SPWAW. Simply substitute 'game abuse' for 'murder'.
I understand you are poking fun.
My point is that even today with size 2 Jeeps and kubelwagens, the Depot ACL has strict 'abuse guidelines' regarding the use of vehicles to draw enemy fire and other such abuses. So abuses are indeed recognized as fact and not opinion.
But with size 1 vehicles the abuses become far worse. You can actually hit a size 2 Jeep sometimes.
Consider involuntary retreats by your Jeep that you have no control over. Even by accident the size 1 Jeep can create game-balance problems. Or consider you are playing PBEM and your finger accidentally slips on the mouse (and this has happened to everybody) and your size 1 Jeep goes racing into an unexplored region and triggers all sorts of events. At least with a size 2 Jeep the effects of these kinds of game-balance accidents are minimized since the size 2 Jeep might get destroyed before the game-balance is seriously compromised.
I realize that you are not arguing with me here and that we are quibbling over semantics. But if enough people have the same opinion, then that collective opinion can be turned into fact (such as the Depot ACL 'abuse guidelines' recognizing as fact that certain game-play abuses are truly facts and not opinions). And clearly the man behind the curtain at Matrix who changed the default minimum size for vehicles to 2 recognized the abuses of size 1 vehicles as fact also and not opinion.
I'm willing to let this go now if you want.
EDIT: Ah, now I see what you are saying. I used the word 'better' in a post up above. The choice of that word was based on the concept that a game is, as an actual fact, better if it has fewer opportunities for abuse. And in terms of the gaming collective, this is actually a fact. An analogy: Our society sees murder as wrong, and that's a fact (our society does in fact see murder as wrong). So, in our society less murder is better. That's a fact. Now there are individuals within our collective society who disagree with our collective society and see nothing wrong with murder. But that doesn't change the fact that our collective society sees less murder as better than more murder. This analogy can be applied to game abuse in SPWAW. Simply substitute 'game abuse' for 'murder'.
RE: Some Observations
Calm down for a moment, vahauser. Lemme look at USMC jeeps --uh, ok, size 2. No one in their right mind is gonna lead an assault with a fleet of jeeps.
No one in their right mind is gonna lead an assault with a fleet of Kuebelwagens, either. Would you play against anyone that did that? I think not. Neither would anyone else.
You are assuming that hordes of SPWAW PBEM players will be abusing the present system and making a mockery of the game. I don't see that happening. You are tilting against windmills, man. Give it up. Post something relevant and useful.
Let's talk about the use of mines and how they are detrimental to a realistic SPWAW maneuver battle. How the AI suffers when they use them, and how the tempo of the battle suffers when they are employed, turning the game into a more-WWI type of positional battle dominated by artillery. For scenarios, mines are fine. For generated long campaigns, they are unecessary. The AI, on the defense, will replace these with bunkers and MG nests which must be individually reduced. Some of my buddies here just can't see that.
I bring that up because in not one instance of the Pacific War do I recall Marine engineers having to remove massive Japanese minefields -- they were scattered hither and thither. Thus, they are immaterial and can be disregarded. My choice suits my style of play. I've changed my OOBs to suit my style of play. Not everyone agrees with me. That's OK. No problem. Doesn't affect me one whit.
No one in their right mind is gonna lead an assault with a fleet of Kuebelwagens, either. Would you play against anyone that did that? I think not. Neither would anyone else.
You are assuming that hordes of SPWAW PBEM players will be abusing the present system and making a mockery of the game. I don't see that happening. You are tilting against windmills, man. Give it up. Post something relevant and useful.
Let's talk about the use of mines and how they are detrimental to a realistic SPWAW maneuver battle. How the AI suffers when they use them, and how the tempo of the battle suffers when they are employed, turning the game into a more-WWI type of positional battle dominated by artillery. For scenarios, mines are fine. For generated long campaigns, they are unecessary. The AI, on the defense, will replace these with bunkers and MG nests which must be individually reduced. Some of my buddies here just can't see that.
I bring that up because in not one instance of the Pacific War do I recall Marine engineers having to remove massive Japanese minefields -- they were scattered hither and thither. Thus, they are immaterial and can be disregarded. My choice suits my style of play. I've changed my OOBs to suit my style of play. Not everyone agrees with me. That's OK. No problem. Doesn't affect me one whit.
RE: Some Observations
French AMR 33 and AMR 35 and FT17 and FT31 tanks are Size 1.
Is all this about just these 4 vehicles, which no one probably hardly ever uses anyway!??
I imagine these 4 got missed over the various oob edits and the numerous different oob teams...I dont see this as that big a deal, guess its just me.
[&:]
Is all this about just these 4 vehicles, which no one probably hardly ever uses anyway!??
I imagine these 4 got missed over the various oob edits and the numerous different oob teams...I dont see this as that big a deal, guess its just me.
[&:]
RE: Some Observations
Alby, just in the unlikely happenstance that the French AI would buy one of these in a German long campaign, I'm gonna change them to size 2. What difference it makes in the big picture is immaterial.
RE: Some Observations
But it is a big deal, Alby. It's taken me this long to get over it enough to be able to post. Seriously though, I agree with you Vahauser that size 2 should be the minimum for vehicles.ORIGINAL: Alby
French AMR 33 and AMR 35 and FT17 and FT31 tanks are Size 1.
Is all this about just these 4 vehicles, which no one probably hardly ever uses anyway!??
I imagine these 4 got missed over the various oob edits and the numerous different oob teams...I dont see this as that big a deal, guess its just me.
[&:]
Reduce SP:WaW slaughter, "Low Carnage":
Settings: 80Spot,80Hit,100R/R,XXXTQ,110TkT,150InfT,180AvSoft,130AvArm,150SOFire / Command & Ctrl ON / AutoRally OFF
Enhanced http://enhanced.freeforums.org
Depot https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/spwawdepot/
Settings: 80Spot,80Hit,100R/R,XXXTQ,110TkT,150InfT,180AvSoft,130AvArm,150SOFire / Command & Ctrl ON / AutoRally OFF
Enhanced http://enhanced.freeforums.org
Depot https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/spwawdepot/
RE: Some Observations
I'm pretty sure alby is correct, I havn't seen any other size 1 vehicles in the enhanced oobs. There are quite a few other odd sized units though, mainly AA guns or transport style units with various weapons or guns attached that probably date way back. I had already changed the French tanks back to size 2 and made a number of other corrections or fudges (depending on the alteration itself or your point of view), for a custom set of oobs before this post began. The problem is as stated before that size is largely subjective in the game. I remember trying to come with a formula for size based on length, width and height of the vehicle years ago but i gave up
RE: Some Observations
Heh. This is how threads get bent out of shape. I agree with you guys. Honest.
I chose the title of this thread 'Observations' because I didn't want things to be taken as a criticism. But, due to misreadings and misunderstandings (mostly on my end), the thread took on a whole different tone and direction.
Anyway, yes. Those 4 French tanks are purchased in significant quantities by the computer in 1939 and 1940. I know this because lately I've been testing a new generated campaign format. But I didn't want to make a big deal out of it. I just wanted to let people know that the French are a more difficult opponent to deal with in 1939 and 1940 due to their size 1 tanks. Not terribly important in the overall scheme of things. [P.S. And this new campaign format I'm testing is one of the 'outside influences and factors' I mentioned regarding editing my OOBs. No point in testing and posting a new campaign format if I'm using different OOBs from Enhanced DVRN. There are other 'outside influences and factors', but this is one of them.]
Regarding the size 1 versus size 2 issue, this is also old news and was argued and debated long ago. And that situation got resolved by the man behind the curtain at Matrix long ago. I did not intend to re-open that issue when I started this thread.
So, yes. I agree with you guys. There is nothing more to see here, so I'll be moving along.
I chose the title of this thread 'Observations' because I didn't want things to be taken as a criticism. But, due to misreadings and misunderstandings (mostly on my end), the thread took on a whole different tone and direction.
Anyway, yes. Those 4 French tanks are purchased in significant quantities by the computer in 1939 and 1940. I know this because lately I've been testing a new generated campaign format. But I didn't want to make a big deal out of it. I just wanted to let people know that the French are a more difficult opponent to deal with in 1939 and 1940 due to their size 1 tanks. Not terribly important in the overall scheme of things. [P.S. And this new campaign format I'm testing is one of the 'outside influences and factors' I mentioned regarding editing my OOBs. No point in testing and posting a new campaign format if I'm using different OOBs from Enhanced DVRN. There are other 'outside influences and factors', but this is one of them.]
Regarding the size 1 versus size 2 issue, this is also old news and was argued and debated long ago. And that situation got resolved by the man behind the curtain at Matrix long ago. I did not intend to re-open that issue when I started this thread.
So, yes. I agree with you guys. There is nothing more to see here, so I'll be moving along.
-
Stvitus2002
- Posts: 265
- Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:13 am
RE: Some Observations
Speaking of size....how is it that the soviet JS2(m) rates a size 5, as opposed to the JS2
at size 4? Other than a sloping front upper hull(as opposed to stepped), aren't these two tanks dimensionally the same?
Joe D.
at size 4? Other than a sloping front upper hull(as opposed to stepped), aren't these two tanks dimensionally the same?
Joe D.
RE: Some Observations
I do not know why only the French OOb has these size one vehicles, there are about 6 or 8 of these units all total.
Perhaps someone in past OOb teams thought they should be size 1 , all this stuff was done years ago by various OOB teams.
no idea about the JS tanks either, same reason I presume.......Anyway, I change things as I see fit for my personal OOB set, suggest others do the same for AI play.
We have got these OObs cleaner than they have been in many many years so.......At some point we simply have to stop making "patches" otherwise we will have 100 people with 100 different verisons of Enhanced trying to figure out what version they have and play PBEM and complaining about security violation messages......which has already happened in fact.
[:(]
Perhaps someone in past OOb teams thought they should be size 1 , all this stuff was done years ago by various OOB teams.
no idea about the JS tanks either, same reason I presume.......Anyway, I change things as I see fit for my personal OOB set, suggest others do the same for AI play.
We have got these OObs cleaner than they have been in many many years so.......At some point we simply have to stop making "patches" otherwise we will have 100 people with 100 different verisons of Enhanced trying to figure out what version they have and play PBEM and complaining about security violation messages......which has already happened in fact.
[:(]
RE: Some Observations
Alby,
Exactly. Which is why I don't mess with my OOBs. I just leave them basic Enhanced DVRN.
Exactly. Which is why I don't mess with my OOBs. I just leave them basic Enhanced DVRN.