Something New in SPWAW

Don · Post by **Don** » Sat Jul 15, 2000 2:41 am

"Well, y'all seen enough AOE mentality to know this will be a drawbck for those types who are interested in this game, and it will appear to be a bug. "
What is "AOE mentality"? I love AOE and don't see any drawbacks about this feature. If it is too much or too little it can be adjusted by Matrix or turned off by you.
Don

Jon Grasham · Post by **Jon Grasham** » Sat Jul 15, 2000 4:38 am

I believe the "AOE mentality" spoken of is the RTS fantatics used to no variables such as this, no "bad" things happen outside of combat. No men panic, no vehicles break, only way losses are taken is from enemy fire. However, since this will be a choice by the player, I think the point is nill. If they read about it, don't want it, it won't be on. For the rest of us... the mechanics are gonna be doin more than replacing optical equipment!

(Will a serious weapon failure acrue "damage" that can be repaired in the refitting parts of campaigns? Or will it automatically be repaired between battles?)

Charles22 · Post by **Charles22** » Sat Jul 15, 2000 5:01 am

Don: AOE mentality, as I define it, is characterised by wanting to play the game of "Paper, Stone, Scissors" on a slightly more sophisticated form. It's also characteristic of wanting to play real time. I too have played both versions of AOE, and I'm sick and tired of this pace to gaming, basically sending turn-based companies out of business; a pace characteristic (turn-based) of wargaming. I've played AOE enough and frankly it's boring to me. I have no intention on buying to upcoming additions they plan. I definitely plan to keep what I have, just to see little men run around every once in a while, but that's about it. I see RTS as a threat to any attempt at historical wargaming.

Paul: I'm quite difficult to understand, aren't I? As I said before I don't feel hurt, or at least hope I don't, by being ignored, I really don't. I'm merely making an attempt to figure out what was going on, as to why Bill suddenly seemed to launch. It's just as my ideas are, I don't expect a gold medal for them, nor do I necessarily even support them if my support mattered. They're only ideas. As Bill says my ideas can be somewhat complex (paraphrasing) so that only adds to my realization that they may be nigh impossible to implement, but hey, what do I know, I'm no programmer? Might as well give it a shot.

Bill: I've figured out what's happened here. Your last response almost really set me off. I reread your first two sentences. The second sentence sounds like you're browbeating me and my punishment is to quit my whining or whatever wrongdoing you thought I was performing, by saying "That is it." (no more)

What really happened is you forgot a very important element to your message, you didn't address to whom you spoke. Your post falling after mine, makes it looks as though you're replying to me, when that isn't so. You were actually replying to WW2'er and now that I read his message (perhaps his fell in as I was typing mine) it fits perfectly into your first comments without any apparent intent to injure WW2'er. Sorry about that. If you apply your comments to my post, you might be able to understand how your comments seemed more antagonistic, particularly considering how I never referred to the option to turning anything off. It was almost the equivalent of saying, "If you don't like something, turn it off or shut up," I'm glad to see you weren't so mean. I'm actually a little surprised that you didn't realize that your post wasn't meant for me, but then after I responded you must have figured that you had, when you had not. Sorry again.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Sat Jul 15, 2000 5:27 am

I don't want to game the system. But I would like to have some sort of guideline for relatively safe behavior. We should have the choice to go into the danger zone of behaviors. Not that I expect no breakdowns if I follow the guidelines, just that I will have fewer. That way I can choose to do risky behavior when I feel it necessary. If, for the most part, 2/3 or more of your movement increases your chances of a breakdown then I would like some rough indication of what 2/3's movement is. Firing all your shots or not, is easy. That fixes itself. The player has a lot of room to judge how much fire he's going to expend. But movement is different, hexes cost more or less to go through and it can get overwhelming if for some reason you wanted to move a large force at a slower pace. Knowing how far a unit can move is not intuitive. The shaded hexes, for me, are my primary visual feedback for most of my decisions for movement. If the game provides for a 2/3's movement feedback to the player then the change in the game engine would be more clearly reflected in the way we would play.

Tomo

Six-pk · Post by **Six-pk** » Sat Jul 15, 2000 6:22 am

'vehicle breakdowns'...
I've wanted this allways, used to play Squad Leader. But 'weapon breakdowns', TO COOL!
Super job Mike, Paul, Wild Bill, and the rest of MATRIX!!

Was wondering if the Pause abillity that will be for internet play will work in play VS AI and PBEM. I hope so! I like to have messages at 1.66 seconds but sometimes I miss some. Longer than 1.66 is to long for me, slows down the over-all game speed.

Anyways Thx!
Six

[This message has been edited by Six-pk (edited July 14, 2000).]

Wild Bill · Post by **Wild Bill** » Sat Jul 15, 2000 7:56 am

Peace, Charles. We'll save our fighting for the game. I'm glad this has cleared up for both of us.

I said I would not post again, but I did want you to know I read your message. Thanks for writing. No bad feelings here.

Wild Bill

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

Jon Grasham · Post by **Jon Grasham** » Sat Jul 15, 2000 7:57 am

As I understand it, the pause will be a live play only feature. It merely pauses the timer for the player initiating it (you can set a time limit for the turns), so would do nothing in single/PBEM games, as there are no turn time limits to pause.

Mike Wood · Post by **Mike Wood** » Sat Jul 15, 2000 8:40 am

Hello...

I am sorry, but I cannot give you a realistic guideline.

Originally posted by Tombstone:
I don't want to game the system. But I would like to have some sort of guideline for relatively safe behavior. We should have the choice to go into the danger zone of behaviors. Not that I expect no breakdowns if I follow the guidelines, just that I will have fewer. That way I can choose to do risky behavior when I feel it necessary. If, for the most part, 2/3 or more of your movement increases your chances of a breakdown then I would like some rough indication of what 2/3's movement is. Firing all your shots or not, is easy. That fixes itself. The player has a lot of room to judge how much fire he's going to expend. But movement is different, hexes cost more or less to go through and it can get overwhelming if for some reason you wanted to move a large force at a slower pace. Knowing how far a unit can move is not intuitive. The shaded hexes, for me, are my primary visual feedback for most of my decisions for movement. If the game provides for a 2/3's movement feedback to the player then the change in the game engine would be more clearly reflected in the way we would play.
Tomo

The reason is, that like many things in this game, there is not a single variable involved, like 2/3 speed. People frequently post "bugs" that are not actually bugs, but something they did not expect. In the case of breakdowns, crew experience, officer abilities, the unit size and weapon size, unit and weapon types, warhead size, crew size, nationality and year and many other factors determine if the break down occur. You can probably drive around at maximum speed, firing maximum rounds in a Panther, mark A for quite some time before a break down occurs. But, if you continue long enough, it will occur. I will notify the user of the breakdown, however.

Generally, breakdowns will occur when at the worst possible time. Japanese battalions will be charging out of the trees in a night assault, with a two visibility. You will desperately need to fire your .30 caliber machine guns till the barrel melts, so you will be firing like crazy - and the barrel will melt. Breakdowns will not be common, when you are creeping along and holding your fire.

See Ya...

Michael Wood

crazyivan · Post by **crazyivan** » Sat Jul 15, 2000 8:54 am

thanks a million for your efforts guys,and wild bill you da man!!!! the new unforseen and often reacuring events of breakdowns which will be added to this game are bar none the realisim and the game just gets better and better (pity i can,t say the same about my spelling)top marks to all the team.

one point though is it atall possible to have a recovery vech tow or load on any afv to take it to a safe place to repiar and if so maybe the repiar time or chance will be better if the siad vech is in the same hex as the repiar crew.ie same as loading ammo from a truck or on a ammo dump.

once agian thank you all for your prompt responses i still can,t believe this game is free the mighty KIWI salutes you all.

Drake666 · Post by **Drake666** » Sat Jul 15, 2000 10:30 am

Originally posted by crazyivan:
thanks a million for your efforts guys,and wild bill you da man!!!! the new unforseen and often reacuring events of breakdowns which will be added to this game are bar none the realisim and the game just gets better and better (pity i can,t say the same about my spelling)top marks to all the team.

one point though is it atall possible to have a recovery vech tow or load on any afv to take it to a safe place to repiar and if so maybe the repiar time or chance will be better if the siad vech is in the same hex as the repiar crew.ie same as loading ammo from a truck or on a ammo dump.

once agian thank you all for your prompt responses i still can,t believe this game is free the mighty KIWI salutes you all.

Will after looking at your post an idea came to me about looding immobilized or out of action tanks into the SdKfz-7 prime mover. It worked OK even with the King Tiger but when you unload it the strange thing happens. The tank will have a crew of 18. Wild or what

crazyivan · Post by **crazyivan** » Sat Jul 15, 2000 11:46 am

hey guys i love the elite member thing thats cool

Wild Bill · Post by **Wild Bill** » Sat Jul 15, 2000 11:48 am

You deserve it, Crazy Ivan!

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

Greg McCarty · Post by **Greg McCarty** » Sat Jul 15, 2000 7:14 pm

I don't know if this has been addressed,
but I assume that the breakdown feature slices both ways. How will the AI handle
this feature? Without revealing too much,
will the AI have enough judgement to not
debilitate itself? (or just act impulsive like the rest of us!) Or at least use some
measure of prudence itself. I imagine the
algorithm which the AI uses to judge fire
and movement would require its own guidline.

amatteucci · Post by **amatteucci** » Sat Jul 15, 2000 7:55 pm

Originally posted by Wild Bill:
Here is some reading straight from the hand of our own Michael Wood, lead programmer at Matrix Games.

[snip]
5) Soviet weapons will tend to have the highest breakdown values. Surprisingly, Italian weapons will fare well and will tend to have among the lowest.
[snip]

May I beg to differ? Of course what I'm saying is not to be considered 'holy writ' but the fact that virtually all Italian LMGs and MMGs used in WW2 had a cartridge lubricating mechanism that was really a 'magnet' for dirt and dust (and sand in the desert) caused many realiability problems. Not to speak of the funny and strange ammo feeding systems (you won't find nor belt nor a removable magazine). May be Italian weapons were not that bad, but I strongly feel that Soviet weapons were much more realiable. Consider that Italian Cavalry troops often used captured Cossak sabres since the standard M1817 pattern was made of a steel not much suitable to freezing temperatures.

Regards,

Amedeo

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Sat Jul 15, 2000 8:29 pm

the latest additions to ver 3.0 would seem to be to attempt to make the game as 'realistic' as possible and actually reduce the 'gaming' effect.

some classic examples of 'gaming' SP

the ol make the AI shoot off all its OP fire, then have a tank "rush" in, fire point blank then dash off. Doable (in older versions) certainly. realistic? No.

another classic: manipulate the OP fire rules to entice an AI tank into turning its gun and firing (even if the solution is poor) exposing thinner side armor to hits (btw i LOVE the controlled OP option for TCP.!!)

a more subtle 'gaming'; always traversing around to the max of a units MP points. Legal and plausible certainly, realistic? not often. certainly not almost all the time. Even Sherman engines would have a hard time with that.
Same thing for always firing all shots each turn. its legal no question, but not always realistic. Have to admit i'm a little wary of this new feature as i'm afraid of potential bugs and such (similar to my concern over what looked like frequent 'hits' when seeing firing solutions of less than 5%) I give credit to the Matrix gang though for making this new feature 'optional' that way if one does'nt like it they can leave it. nice.

there will always be ways to 'game' any wargame. Its as inevitable as hacking. Some companies attempt to counter this by being very tight with their info on how the game works. I much prefer the open door policy Matrix has here, keeping us in the loop and querrying suggestions from us, the users of the program.

Not all the suggestions may be acted on but then again there are only so many hours in the day and not everyone agrees on most issues. But give credit for the attempt!

I only wish SSI had been as open and honest about the disasterous Fighting Steel wargame i had anticipated for so long only to not only be terribly let down but to actually get a hostile reaction from the company when i and others voiced complaints about bugs and suggestions to improve the game. There, they simply discontinued support for the game.

Here? we've gotten 3 patches in only about a month or so. I find that level of dedication and support phenominal

going back to issues on gaming. Its an issue that the gamers themselves must take equal responsibilty for too. Designers can only do so much (without damaging the product in the prcoess) Those interested in truely exploring the myrid of "what if" type situations that SP allows us to explore us will police themselves and not use such outragiously ahistorical situations like using snipers as suicide squads or trucks as ammo absorbers.

open dialog between players before starting can set additional chks on ahistorical situations.

This is why i dont bother much with 'ladder' type organizations. There the emphasis is on winning, by any means necessary. nothing wrong with that but for me, the goal is to participate in what i could in years past only 'read' about....commanding armored battlegroups in realistic conditions against opponents who act similarily.

Bravo Matrix for continuously working to make SP the most intensive, fun and *realistic* game of tactical armored combat on the planet.

Wild Bill · Post by **Wild Bill** » Sat Jul 15, 2000 10:46 pm

And still more coming, fellas! Read the latest!

Wild Bill

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

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Sun Jul 16, 2000 12:08 am

Amen Nik, we have to support Matrix games as much as possible, and show the bigger commercial development and publishing companies that supporting the users equals success. Granted, wargames aren't so high profile as a lot of game types out there, but we all know how it's one of the few genres that's taken the user to it's level instead of going to the level of the user (for the most part -panzer general *ahem*.) We need to recognize that computer games have gotten really big, but computer wargames have not. Our support makes a difference.

Tomo

victorhauser · Post by **victorhauser** » Sun Jul 16, 2000 1:25 am

Originally posted by amatteucci:
May I beg to differ? Of course what I'm saying is not to be considered 'holy writ' but the fact that virtually all Italian LMGs and MMGs used in WW2 had a cartridge lubricating mechanism that was really a 'magnet' for dirt and dust (and sand in the desert) caused many realiability problems. Not to speak of the funny and strange ammo feeding systems (you won't find nor belt nor a removable magazine). May be Italian weapons were not that bad, but I strongly feel that Soviet weapons were much more realiable. Consider that Italian Cavalry troops often used captured Cossak sabres since the standard M1817 pattern was made of a steel not much suitable to freezing temperatures. --Amedeo

Is it possible to put a button in the Player Preferences for "BREAKDOWN %" just like we have for Rout/Rally %, Sighting %, Tank Toughness %, etc. in order to address this issue?

I too, believe that many types of Soviet equipment were extremely rugged and reliable. I think that whenever the Soviets tried to build complicated "Western" types of equipment then those systems almost always ran into problems. But when they built for the common soldier in the field (e.g., the 120mm mortar, 76mm gun series, SMGs, diesel-powered T-34s, etc.) that equipment was able to operate effectively in very harsh conditions.

A related feature that I would like to see in combination with the Breakdown feature is the addition of various aspects of the maintance organizations that every army fielded to deal with the breakdowns that inevitably occurred in combat. I think that it's important that if the possibility of breakdowns is included, then so should a means of repairing said breakdowns. The game currently has HQ tents, ammo dumps, ammo vehicles, FOs, etc. to support those aspects of the game. Thus, I'd like to see Repair Depots and Recovery Vehicles to support the breakdown aspect of the game, too.

[This message has been edited by victorhauser (edited July 15, 2000).]

bbbf · Post by **bbbf** » Sun Jul 16, 2000 12:32 pm

The problem I see in introducing elements like maintenance companies, is where do you stop?
There were a lot of other units attached to combat units (e.g. medical teams, kitchens, religous/politicial) but in the time frame of an individual game would they have time to perform any useful work, especially under fire.
Perhaps for campaigns, points could be allocated to purchasing these ancilliary units. The lack of these mean less replacment points or that it takes a number of turns for things to be repaired (i.e. has to be sent back to a higher unit for repair) or lower morale (no doctors or hot food has a pretty bad effect on combat soldiers psyche!)

------------------
Robert Lee

Wild Bill · Post by **Wild Bill** » Sun Jul 16, 2000 12:51 pm

Very good point, Robert. And we know that very well here at Matrix.

If too many features, ideas, alternatives, choices, options, variables, possibilities and tasks are added, the game loses one of its primary qualities: fast action.

We have come here to fight, not to fix

.

Now I am not body slamming the suggestions, just stating now my own personal view. It could keep on until you have a soldier dropping out of a squad to answer the call of nature, or stopping for chow.

Maintenance in the middle of a red hot battle is often not an option. If a barrel on a machine gun melts and the Japanese are on top of you (using Michael's illustration), you instinctively grab your carbine or an entrenching tool.

Some items are quite feasible such as breakdowns are a very real factor in combat.

Others become events either before or after the battle.

Again, this is my personal opinion and preference and in no way downplays or belittles others suggestions.

Wild Bill

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