v7.1 status report

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Mon Jan 07, 2002 11:53 pm

We are currently working on a fix to the "synch bug" and a few issues with the two player campaign (most notably when done online).

We are also looking into a way to address one aspect of the artillery delay issue, but I not sure if the fix will pan out.

What has been fixed in the current test build is:

1) too many men fire primary inf weapons - this has been corrected so only primary inf weapons in SLOT 1 are fired multiple times. Also a suppression componant has been added so supression reduces the number of "multiple men" firing. This should help the problem of unsuppressed defenders taking excessive losses because suppressed attackers still attack with the same number of men as unsuppressed units. Likewise this reduces this will reduce teh casualties taken when an attacking force has a significnat numerical superiority and suppresses the daylights out of defenders.

This will in general increase the effectiveness of preparatory and overwatcing fires.

The effect is now: Roll DIE(200) for each man in the squad , if the result is less than (experience-(suppression/2)) the man fires. The result is added to the base of at least 1 man always firing.

2) Flame weapons are too destructive: Flame weapons has a base 60% chance of penetration vice "automatic" penetration.

3) APCR T/d calcualtion incorrect: Repaired. This reduces the effectiveness in undermatched engagements (ie armor significantly greater than projectile diameter)

4) Slope effect on effective resistance tweaked slightly upward. (this makes the effective resistance slightly higher)

5) Modified the ricochet routine to do a check for "shatter gap" tendency (though with a significant randon element) based on the chance of shatter starting at about T/d = .75 and reaching max at about 1.25. Penetration to effective resistance ratio ramps from a minimum at ramping up linearly from 1.01 to max at 1.11 and at the high end more variably in a "hump" centered at 1.25 but having significant tails form about 1.10 up to 1.4. Note the max shatter probability is capped at .5 and testing has shown it generaly much less, but wanted to include this effect as part of the ricochet routine.

6)Introduced a more linear variabilty into vulnerable location hits, The chance ramps up from 300m on in rather than a step function at range 150.

7) Bit the bullet and added a rudimentory "armor quality" function that works a lot better than the thickness germandering I tried to do. Since the effective resistance of high hardness or cast armor had a bigger T/d dependance than I originally thought.

For those complaining about this I have come around to the error of my ways <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

The "Skirts" data element in the OOBs is now coded like radio to allow 5 different armor types:

0,1,2,3 Single digit gives the vehicle 0, 10, 20 , or 30mm skirts on Flank hits. Vehice is assumed to have MOSTLY "normal" 240 BHN RHA type armor

10,11,12,13 As above but armor is superior quality to "regualar" RHA.

20,21,22,23 As above but vehicle has "high hardness" armor of moderate quality.

30,31,32,33 As above but has "high hardness" armor of poor quality.

40,41,42,43 As above but armor is cast.

Now these categories are a bit vague, but allow for inclusion of T/d into the quality equation, namely that armor deficiency is most pronounced when siginiicantly overmatched, and in the case of high hardness can actually be a benefit when the T/d is high.

This means that 37 vs T-34 will be generally ineffective, 50mm will be a wash with the "old values" and 75 and 88 in particular will see less effective resistance. This will allow the enhanced effect of 75mm and 88mm rounds without giving the 50 and in particular 37mm APCR a free ride.

I am presently updating the vehicel stats with this additional value. ARmor values have been restored to v6 standards, in the case of some vehicels penalized for cast armor, enhanced. (KV, IS and Churchill types the most effected. THis allows for an appropriate T/d to be calculated based on actual armor thickness, and not a reduced value. I am also changing some of teh front hull values to a more uniform use of "most significant plate" with a slope modifier if a more vulnerable plate is present, again so T/d calculations are not skewed. This works withthe change in vulnerable loaction hits to allow for "lessor" plates to be engaged with more range dependance (its hard to hit them outside 300m, but much easier at 1 hex)

This OOB update will take me another week or so to get done with. I have instituted the updates Alby had made form the threads here and the mortar changes (less some the extr FO's).

Steve Wilcox · Post by **Steve Wilcox** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 12:17 am

Thanks for all the work you and the others put into perfecting this game. It's greatly appreciated. And I hope 7.1 is the crowning achievement of SPWAW.

scimitar · Post by **scimitar** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 12:33 am

Paul, you make really a great job!

Warrior · Post by **Warrior** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 12:33 am

Paul, we're lucky you're around. Massive thanks for your continuous work on SPWaW.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 12:46 am

Hmmmm I spent the holiday season eating great food and molesting my wife.
It looks like with all this work on 7.1 though, that Paul didnt get much chance to have fun himself this holiday season.

I sure hope the mob appreciates all this incesant work.

I supposed 7.1 will get posted eventually eh.

V-man · Post by **V-man** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 12:54 am

I have a couple bugs/comments.

First, as a former infantryman, I have a complaint. I was taught, as was a friend of mine that was in the military, that when a unit, say, a platoon, engaged an enemy unit, that one squad would lay down fire to suppress the enemy so the other squads could move up reasonably safely and get close enough to actually finish them off.
Your "Special OpFire" defeats that. In the game, i can no longer use real world tactics against the enemy as I could in SP III. I don't care how some folks think it's somehow "unrealistic", it's how wars are won.

Next - when I select a "Hard Battle" in the Long Campaign, against the Germans, invariably I end up fighting a HQ, some Recon Patrols, and a couple AAA tracks and little more. This *seems* to be a bug. I am seeing this in 6.0 and 7.0 - dunno if anyone else is...

timc · Post by **timc** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 1:02 am

Paul, you guys really are the best. For what it's worth, I used the "hoof and mouth disease" fix on the "synch" bug. I removed the game, reinstalled it from the MegaCampaign CD and ran the ver 6.1 upgrade. No problem anymore.

Lars Remmen · Post by **Lars Remmen** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 1:30 am

Originally posted by Velovich:
I have a couple bugs/comments.

First, as a former infantryman, I have a complaint. I was taught, as was a friend of mine that was in the military, that when a unit, say, a platoon, engaged an enemy unit, that one squad would lay down fire to suppress the enemy so the other squads could move up reasonably safely and get close enough to actually finish them off.
Your "Special OpFire" defeats that. In the game, i can no longer use real world tactics against the enemy as I could in SP III. I don't care how some folks think it's somehow "unrealistic", it's how wars are won.

Next - when I select a "Hard Battle" in the Long Campaign, against the Germans, invariably I end up fighting a HQ, some Recon Patrols, and a couple AAA tracks and little more. This *seems* to be a bug. I am seeing this in 6.0 and 7.0 - dunno if anyone else is...

First: Have you bothered to set the op-fire frequency lower? You can do that in the prefrences you know.

Next: I suppose your core force is quite large. The game has some difficulties when the number of points becomes very high. Perhaps you can try it out with a smaller core force.

Regards,

Lars

Jackk · Post by **Jackk** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 1:30 am

I don't know what Paul just said with all those numbers and stuff, but I do appreciate that he (and others) is still putting more work into improving this game.

Thanks Paul!

V-man · Post by **V-man** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 1:40 am

Originally posted by Lars Remmen:

First: Have you bothered to set the op-fire frequency lower? You can do that in the prefrences you know.

Next: I suppose your core force is quite large. The game has some difficulties when the number of points becomes very high. Perhaps you can try it out with a smaller core force.

Regards,

Lars

Thanks for the reply. I don't like fiddling with the setings, tends (in past experience) to mess the game up. Also, the op fire is a good thing, just not when the unit shoudl be suppressed. I *like* the OpFire, just think that a suppressed unit should be *suppressed*!

Of course my Core Force is Large! <img src="cool.gif" border="0"> Could it be anything else??
Me, I'd like to see SPWaW as a Brigade level game, with basic units being platoons, like the original SP III it's built from. But this is a far better game than SP I, which I have and don't play. Big maps, big units, lotsa of variety and complexity.
Seriously, I'd like a Brigade level AND a Battalion level version of SPWaW. As a Battalion level game, it's great, as a BDE game it'd be even better.

Maybe V10 can toggle between the two levels?

V-man

V-man · Post by **V-man** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 1:42 am

Originally posted by Lars Remmen:

Next: I suppose your core force is quite large. The game has some difficulties when the number of points becomes very high. Perhaps you can try it out with a smaller core force.

Regards,

Lars

Just wanted to add, if the game has difficulties with a large point-value force, then that *is* a bug, isn't it? Something to be mentioned, here, for the programmers to think on/be aware of...

Lars Remmen · Post by **Lars Remmen** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 1:45 am

Originally posted by Velovich:

Just wanted to add, if the game has difficulties with a large point-value force, then that *is* a bug, isn't it? Something to be mentioned, here, for the programmers to think on/be aware of...

I do think they are aware of it but I believe it is a limitation of the old SP3 engine. One more problem that CL will hopefully correct.

Regards,

Lars

V-man · Post by **V-man** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 1:47 am

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
[QB]

<lots of snippage>

1) too many men fire primary inf weapons -

This should help the problem of unsuppressed defenders taking excessive losses because suppressed attackers still attack with the same number of men as unsuppressed units. Likewise this reduces this will reduce teh casualties taken when an attacking force has a significnat numerical superiority and suppresses the daylights out of defenders.

This will in general increase the effectiveness of preparatory and overwatcing fires.[QB]

Sounds like this will address what I've been ticked about.
For clairity, in the above example (last sentence), the reduction in casualties is going to be in the favor of the UNsuppressed unit?

V-man

V-man · Post by **V-man** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 1:55 am

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:

<more snippage>

2) Flame weapons are too destructive: Flame weapons has a base 60% chance of penetration vice "automatic" penetration.

This OOB update will take me another week or so to get done with. I have instituted the updates Alby had made form the threads here and the mortar changes (less some the extr FO's).

WRT flame weapons, one thing I'd like to see if you are reducing lethality is an increase in suppression to the point that the unit simply breaks and runs, one shot. People are *afraid* of fire.

WRT OOBs, hows about adding in an ammo-dump-like unit called "Ready Rounds" it's loadable on a truck/LVT/DUKW/ETC and functions like an Ammo Carrier.
Allow the Ready Rounds to be accessed by being adjacent, like an Ammo carrier, so when, say, defending, I can position one just behind my front line and keep folks firing. This is GREAT for things like mortar crews. Give it a low cost, and the disadvantage is that it's not mobile like an ammo truck.
Also, how about a toggle, on the deployment screen or in Unit Info, to NOT go into entrenchments? There are times I place units so they can bound forward, like a cav screen, and in a defense scenario, the will appear in entrenchments on turn ONE. I don't want entrenchments there, just the cav unit.
Also, WRT to entrenchments, Special Forces and cargo planes/gliders get their OWN entrenchments in those scenarios, even though they'll be empty very soon.
(Yes, I use SF and Paratroops in a "Defend" scenario - they can REALLY break up an attack just by wrecking the enemy's mortars.)

V-man

V-man · Post by **V-man** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 1:57 am

Originally posted by Lars Remmen:

I do think they are aware of it but I believe it is a limitation of the old SP3 engine. One more problem that CL will hopefully correct.

Regards,

Lars

"CL"? Who or what is that? This is my first day actually using these forums.

Frank W. · Post by **Frank W.** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 2:41 am

Originally posted by Velovich:

"CL"? Who or what is that? This is my first day actually using these forums.

combat leader.

completly new game,which will hopefully be as great (or better) than SPWAW.

see " products " section.

greetinx

frank

Mikimoto · Post by **Mikimoto** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 2:50 am

Paul:

Thank you very much for your work, dedication and patience. Sincerely.

Alby · Post by **Alby** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 4:07 am

Paul, You are THE MAN!
Thanks for continued dedication! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

john g · Post by **john g** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 5:24 am

Originally posted by Velovich:

WRT OOBs, hows about adding in an ammo-dump-like unit called "Ready Rounds" it's loadable on a truck/LVT/DUKW/ETC and functions like an Ammo Carrier.
Allow the Ready Rounds to be accessed by being adjacent, like an Ammo carrier, so when, say, defending, I can position one just behind my front line and keep folks firing. This is GREAT for things like mortar crews. Give it a low cost, and the disadvantage is that it's not mobile like an ammo truck.V-man

It is already in there, look for ammo cannisters, normally used only in scenarios because they are a total hose.

Last time I looked they were only 14 pts and were just 2 men in size. As I recall they loaded just as fast as an ammo carrier, and of course carried all varieties of ammo. At least they are immobile like an ammo dump.

There is no way I would want them in any battle except where the scenario author absolutely needed them (like in Lightning Strikes).
thanks, John.

valdor17 · Post by **valdor17** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 5:43 am

Is there any fixes to the corrupted post game saves in campaign mode?

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: Valdor ]</p>