Few things to improve

Pave · Post by **Pave** » Wed Jul 12, 2000 11:44 pm

Even the game is great already, there are few things which could be improved.

- The Finnish OOB and Finnish names need some more work. Some equipment is missing, some is wrong and the names are mostly non-existing or rare. If you need help...

- Have you noticed that a thing called recon is totally missing? I would be nice to have some sort of info about the enemy before hitting the Omaha beach.

- In amphibious landings the defending AI is "camping" at the water line. They must have wet boots or are they having a beach party?

- As far as I know T-43 was only a prototype and designed as a counter measure against Tiger and Panther. Now the AI is buying companies of them. Not fun.

- A nice spalsh could occur when the shells and planes hit the water, instead of the normal explosion.

- Random map generator could use the new map features, as well as make spring maps by mixing summer and winter terrain. Desert and and Summer terrain could be mixed as well.

- There is something wrong in the scenario editor. I first played a campaign a jungle and after that I designed a scenario in a desert environment, but now the game thinks it's a jungle. I cannot fix it.

- At the moment all aircraft, including level bombers make dive bombing runs. Maybe one of the armor values could be used as special code to indicate level bombers which do not make dive bombing /strafing runs. Also please remove all MG/cannon armament from the level bombers.

- Bridges cannot be build in exact north-south direction (vertical). This was possible in some older versions of SP.

- Why can't we build canals like stream? Why do we have to first build streams and then convert them? What if you have already made sreams which you don't eant to convert?

- Fortifications could carry men. It was normal that soldiers used them as shelters.

- Vision for vehicles with a turret could be based on the turret.

- In amphibious landings AA and AT-guns are not loaded on barges and they become destroyed when the scenario starts.

- German assault gun crews could get better artillery command ratings, since they had artillery background. Same is partly true for Finland.

That's all I can remember right now. Maybe not all of them are good ideas, but at least we can discuss about them.

[This message has been edited by Pave (edited 07-12-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Pave (edited 07-12-2000).]

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Wed Jul 12, 2000 11:55 pm

Pave, there is already a new Finnish OOB going thru final checks. I'm sure you will be pleased to see it in Version 3.0

As for forts, I tested them a while ago. It's easy to allow troops to be loaded in, but they cannot fire out and they will bail out immediately when fort gets any kind of hit. More coding from Michael Wood might cure this..or that he gets a nervous breakdown from working too hard

Voriax

BA Evans · Post by **BA Evans** » Thu Jul 13, 2000 1:14 am

Originally posted by Pave:

- At the moment all aircraft, including level bombers make dive bombing runs. Maybe one of the armor values could be used as special code to indicate level bombers which do not make dive bombing /strafing runs. Also please remove all MG/cannon armament from the level bombers.

Some bombers in the pacific were fitted with a whole bunch of guns in the nose. Rocket Launchers were also fitted to the outside of the nose. These bombers were used for merchant ship interdiction and could really tear up a small ship. I am not sure if this variant was used against land targets.

Anyone know if similar bombers were used against land targets in Europe?

BA Evans

Grumble · Post by **Grumble** » Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:58 pm

In the ETO the aircraft that come closest to this "attack" mission would be the Mosquito FB VI and the A20/A26 series. The A20/A26 were specifically designed to have considerable forward firepower for strafing; also they could carry rockets on the wings and bombs internally. The Mosquito had 4x.30in MGs and 4x20mm Cannon in the nose plus rockets. I BELIEVE that the internal weapons bay had a fuel bladder in it, maybe our British friends can help out here.
The B25J models (the ones with the 75mm gun) were strictly used in the Pacific and primarily in the antishipping role. There may have been "solid nose" B25s in Europe; just not sure.

Pave · Post by **Pave** » Thu Jul 13, 2000 10:49 pm

Originally posted by BA Evans:
Some bombers in the pacific were fitted with a whole bunch of guns in the nose. Rocket Launchers were also fitted to the outside of the nose. These bombers were used for merchant ship interdiction and could really tear up a small ship. I am not sure if this variant was used against land targets.

BA Evans

Yes, I know. But that would not be a problem as they could be defined as not being level bombers. The B-25 with a 75mm gun would not be a level bomber as other variants would be. At the moment is just looks weird when some medium bombers like Do-217 dives. Some bombers even use their defencive MGs against ground targets (like Pe-2).

Level bombers could also suffer from poor bombing accuracy, which was the case in reality.

Larry Holt · Post by **Larry Holt** » Fri Jul 14, 2000 12:34 am

Could we also have the game dispense cash? I'd like to see a switch in the preferences screen for denominations and national currency.

------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.

Wild Bill · Post by **Wild Bill** » Fri Jul 14, 2000 1:05 am

I've tried to get that feature in Larry, but so far no luck

------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games

BA Evans · Post by **BA Evans** » Fri Jul 14, 2000 1:15 am

Do we need a specific brand of printer for that cash? Or is this feature compatable with most common brands of printers?

[This message has been edited by BA Evans (edited 07-13-2000).]

Belaja smert · Post by **Belaja smert** » Fri Jul 14, 2000 10:53 am

Originally posted by BA Evans:
Do we need a specific brand of printer for that cash? Or is this feature compatable with most common brands of printers?

[This message has been edited by BA Evans (edited 07-13-2000).]

Is this new Euro -currency going to be available too?

Belaja smert

Reg · Post by **Reg** » Fri Jul 14, 2000 4:05 pm

Something from left field....

Is it possible to have a second field on the Unit Information/Status Screen to hold the Unit type?

Currently if you change the unit name, for example to Unit Designation (1/10 Batt), you lose visibility of what the unit type is. (Just one for those of us rookies who haven't memorised the encyclopedia stats

).

Ta,
Reg

Rhino · Post by **Rhino** » Fri Jul 14, 2000 4:10 pm

The problem isn't the printer type, it's just that special paper and ink that are so hard to find! I get mine from a guy named Abdulach and his "prices" are outrageous!!!

Pave · Post by **Pave** » Sun Jul 16, 2000 8:55 pm

Just remembered few things. These might be hard to add to the game, but would be nice anyway.

- Make a difference what is being carried and what is towed. Trucks could tow a gun and carry a squad of men at the same time.

- Weight could be measured in tons (or kgs or lbs) and bridges would have a weight limit(maybe fixed for wood, stone and railroad types). In real life there were problems sometimes, because heavy tanks like Tiger weighted too much that they could have used some of the smaller bridges.

- Tank crews could man other vehicles than their own tank. I think this doesn't work yet, because I haven't been able to do this. Of course, if a Pz-II crew captures a abandoned ISU-152, they should suffer from reduced speed, fire rate, etc. This could be limited only for the vehicles of the side or even just the same type.

Don · Post by **Don** » Mon Jul 17, 2000 12:28 am

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Larry Holt:
Could we also have the game dispense cash? I'd like to see a switch in the preferences screen for denominations and national currency.

And hopefully we could chose between paper money or the new gold dollars. They could fly out the floppy disk slot!!

Jon Grasham · Post by **Jon Grasham** » Mon Jul 17, 2000 5:02 am

Don't stop there... make it a REWARD! If you score a victory, then your score will be how many gold dollars will shoot out of the floppy. SPWAW could become the Vegas of wargamers! Of course, you will have to go out and get the new PCI US Mint add-on card for your game to be compatible, and make sure you buy metalic refil bars for the casting of the coins...

(oh, and make sure you have on your oven mits (which will come with the card) to handle and or reload the card while it is in use.. it can get a little hot. )

[This message has been edited by Jon Grasham (edited July 16, 2000).]

Don · Post by **Don** » Tue Jul 18, 2000 12:07 am

Jon,
Now THAT would push me to become a better player!!

Don

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Tue Jul 18, 2000 3:30 am

Originally posted by Pave:
J
- Tank crews could man other vehicles than their own tank. I think this doesn't work yet, because I haven't been able to do this. Of course, if a Pz-II crew captures a abandoned ISU-152, they should suffer from reduced speed, fire rate, etc. This could be limited only for the vehicles of the side or even just the same type.

I don't think that this is a good idea. It is one thing to move from your tanks to a truck or like that, but I'm pretty certain that if a PzII crew, or a Sherman crew encounters a shutdown KV tank they would not even get the engine started.

And if we'd imagine the engine is running, then they'd have to deal with totally different controls, in this case marked with cyrillic characters. chances are that they'd might get it moving a bit and crank a turret, but in all fairness all firecontrol and range finder rating should be reduced to zero, etc...even moving from pzII to PzIII is a 'big' move requiring more training..

too much trouble for what it's worth I'd think.

Voriax

victorhauser · Post by **victorhauser** » Tue Jul 18, 2000 7:41 am

Originally posted by Grumble:
In the ETO the aircraft that come closest to this "attack" mission would be the Mosquito FB VI and the A20/A26 series. The A20/A26 were specifically designed to have considerable forward firepower for strafing; also they could carry rockets on the wings and bombs internally. The Mosquito had 4x.30in MGs and 4x20mm Cannon in the nose plus rockets. I BELIEVE that the internal weapons bay had a fuel bladder in it, maybe our British friends can help out here.
The B25J models (the ones with the 75mm gun) were strictly used in the Pacific and primarily in the antishipping role. There may have been "solid nose" B25s in Europe; just not sure.

Actually, most B-25Js had a glazed nose for a more conventional medium bomber role (although some were modified with a solid nose containing MGs). The B-25G and B-25H were the ones with the 75mm gun, and were used both in the South Pacific and in the Mediterranean Theaters.

Scipio Africanus · Post by **Scipio Africanus** » Tue Jul 18, 2000 10:30 am

And speaking of beach assaults...

1) Yes, Germans entrenching on the beach is mighty weird (what happens at high tide?) as well as a bit unfair (not so historical either).

2) In my last WWII campaign beach assault, the Germans outnumbered me when I landed (I lost an entire battalion within 2 turns of landing). I assume that either my General or someone over in army intelligence is getting court marshalled for this.

3) As my units were being destroyed, they attempted to retreat into the sea. Perhaps this sort of suicidal irrationality occasionally happened in history, but I should hope my men would have been briefed on the futility of such behavior before landing on the beach.

4) My 4.2 inch mortars did not get boats. So lucky them, they floated around 1500 yards from shore rather than having to endure the carnage on the beach.

5) German AT rifles were sinking boats that carried tanks. These boats must displace at least 70 or 80 tons of water. Incredible that they could be hit at the waterline so easily. So, a 2 inch hole admitted 10 tons of water in a single 2-5 minute turn. I think if we were to work the physics out on this, the water would have to be admitted into the boat at some velocity considerably higher than the speed of sound. No wonder everyone was killed on the 9 boats that the AT rifles nailed

A 2 inch hole might sink a 70 ton boat in half a day, if at all. A torpedo hitting the midsection might sink such a boat in 5 minutes.

6) And finally, many of the boats that sank with all hands lost were 50 yards from shore

Yes, some casualties should be taken in such situations. But unless the assault is in action during a force 10 storm, I should think some of those men might endeavor to walk to shore (it IS a beach after all)

Anyway, bummer to have this sort of thing come up in a campaign (I'm sure it works fine for the most part with scenarios). Perhaps some of these issues might be addressed, or perhaps beach scenarios in campaigns could be scripted, or be removed.

Cheers

------------------
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Tue Jul 18, 2000 6:17 pm

Originally posted by Pave:
- Tank crews could man other vehicles than their own tank. I think this doesn't work yet, because I haven't been able to do this. Of course, if a Pz-II crew captures a abandoned ISU-152, they should suffer from reduced speed, fire rate, etc. This could be limited only for the vehicles of the side or even just the same type.

Aside from the obvious problems of different languages, and often different layouts, how often did this happen, in the time scale that SPWaW models? I know the Red Chinese and the Russians/Soviets used to send unarmed men into battle on the understanding that there would soon be plenty of dead comrades to strip things from, but I don't think anyone ever had tank crews that were instructed to use whatever they found.

Pave · Post by **Pave** » Thu Jul 20, 2000 11:17 pm

Originally posted by Seth:
Aside from the obvious problems of different languages, and often different layouts, how often did this happen, in the time scale that SPWaW models? I know the Red Chinese and the Russians/Soviets used to send unarmed men into battle on the understanding that there would soon be plenty of dead comrades to strip things from, but I don't think anyone ever had tank crews that were instructed to use whatever they found.

Okay, I admit that capturing an enemy tank wasn't very common, but it did happen. Finns once captured a ISU-152 and after painting Finnish markings on it, used it few days later.

In Finnish Stug-III units the 3rd sec did not have assault guns in early summer '44. They instead formed quard teams (against enemy infantry) and they also replaced any wounded or killed crew members in the assault guns.

The main idea was however, that if a crew abandones its tank and gets killed outside, then another crew without a tank could man that tank, at least if they had same kind of a tank.

This is not so important feature. I was just thinking that now a crew whose tank is destroyed is totally useless (unless used for scouting), because it cannot man another tank, not even of the same type.