Revolutionary new feature! Coming in Ver 3.0

[Drake666]

Will when I design maps I always go with what looks nice and dont worry about the other things much. I always found that if you use a hictoric map as a guide you will more then likely end up with a nice looking map.

[Figmo]

Thanks Drake - that's good advice.

It will be a lot easier now too - with older versions of SP - I had to fudge the maps for all kinds of reasons - but with Reinforcements and many of the feature in the game now - I won't have to do that.

Figmo

[Paul Vebber]

I think a discussion of areas for improvement in the armor system could be done in a professional an unemotional manner, Claus. That you think otherwise is unfortunate.

[Tombstone]

I agree that what looks like is the best bet for scenarios... but in maps set up for the express purpose of player to player combat I think more effort has to put toward balanced sides. (or not balanced if thats the intent.) My question is this, what effects do the map have on head to head play and what is the objective to achieve when creating these maps. Given those two (not so small) bits of information you can go about refining the process of making 'good' multi-player maps.

Tomo

[Drake666]

Originally posted by Tombstone:
I agree that what looks like is the best bet for scenarios... but in maps set up for the express purpose of player to player combat I think more effort has to put toward balanced sides. (or not balanced if thats the intent.) My question is this, what effects do the map have on head to head play and what is the objective to achieve when creating these maps. Given those two (not so small) bits of information you can go about refining the process of making 'good' multi-player maps.

Tomo

Yup, what you are saying is true and what I do when I make a map just for human play is along them lines. All you got to do is fallow a few things to make a map even for both players.

1. If you place one river put it on the center line. If you place two rivers place them evenly on both sides of the center line.

2. If you place a large town, place it so the town center is on the center line of the map. When you place small towns or large builds, try and include the same number on both sides of the center line and at about the same distance.

3. If you do one large hill, place it on the center line of the map. If you do a number of hills, try and include ones of equil importance on both sides of the center line.

I followed them rules in making a few of my maps.

[Figmo]

These are all great ideas but we should also keep in mind commanders don't always get to choose there terrain. I'm sure the Americans when they got into France would have loved to be able to hit a button and get out of those hedgerows!!

Figmo

[Panther]

A feature that I like to put into Maps is some terrain benefits near the edges of the map. What I mean by that is putting roads parallel to the map edge maybe 3 to four hexes away. Or for example a hill that lets you over look part of that battle field. This allows for the map to be used to its fullness and draws out the cluster effect that tends to happen in the center of the map. Another feature that I like to use in map design is to limit the visibilty with obstacles (trees building elevation changes.) With the exeption of some areas of russia and eastern europe and in the dessert most of the time you will only be able to see a couple of hundred yards or less. That is 5 hexes or less. Make your roads somewhat wavy. With the exeption of some major highways many roads in europe used to follow old roman roads or tracks that developed over the years that followed the contour of the land rather than be precision engineered (especially in russia and eastern europe). And do not forget old fortifications and castles many of which had moats around them (good defensive position. Also enclude some large estates.

[Larry Holt]

I've read that in the Soviet Union, most farming villages tended to be on high ground, hill tops or ridges.

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

[Graf Speer]

"like water off a duck's back" - easy for a duck, but often harder for wargamers, yes? )

So, I applaud the forum host and moderators for restoring my faith in what it should mean to us to "host" and "moderate" forum discussion.

There's nothing more regrettable to observe forum management where 'members' are not really permitted to express their god's-honest or aetheistic-invested opinions freely - whether they be blantly obvious, ignorant, brilliant, blind, or otherwise passionately held!

So, my hat's off to our ubiquitous forum guys; I applaud the way this Forum continues to be handled!
There is a higher ground to be gained in 'risking' contentious and challenging viewpoints.

Albert
p.s. Worthy of a postscript, I believe it should be acknowledged that CB 'slipped' in judgment mometarily when he turned a perfectly "cross all the T's and dot the i's" type of game-oriented argument into a less purposeful ad hominem 'stinger' when he said,

. . . the fact is that WBW screwed up

. Like I said, this was a slip up in my view. But, we are all still here. And I hold this forum fully accountable for such laudable conduct by its ubiquitous host and active and generously informative moderators . . . who I only hold with higher regard. Keep it up, guys! . . . like water off a duck's back!

[Wild Bill]

Well said, GS! Thank you. You have a good analytical mind.

And yes, there is freedom to express your views here. That is what makes a forum a fun place to be.

Wild Bill


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

[Tombstone]

Is there a way to rate the tactical value of terrain? It would be nice to have asymetrical maps that were still balanced. Does better fields of fire balance out as long the opponent has one or two obstructed lanes of advance? Or is heavily wooded terrain balanced by rough uneven terrain? The more variation you have in the map the more the players have to use against each other. I'm fully on board for symetry as it is clearly fair, but is that ideal?

I'm working on a map right now that has a big river bend in it. The infantry can cross it, but tanks would need barges. The bend occupies the northern-middle area. I'm trying to force some duel game to occur, where the mobile units fight for position around the bend while the infantr you choose to send across the river has to fight with whatever the opponent sends across...

Tomo

[Wild Bill]

Tomo, it's largely a matter of feel and practice more than hard rules. As you design scenarios and maps more and more, you'll begin to recognize those kind of setups immediately.

Putting some units on the map and testing it wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Wild Bill


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

[Drake666]

Is there a way to rate the tactical value of terrain?


Nope, got to do it by feal.

It would be nice to have asymetrical maps that were still balanced. Does better fields of fire balance out as long the opponent has one or two obstructed lanes of advance?Or is heavily wooded terrain balanced by rough uneven terrain? The more variation you have in the map the more the players have to use against each other.


Their is no way to have a asymetrical map really balanced, but you got to remember that asymetrical maps are good if people want to use it for a delay or defind battles, were symetry is not imported. Symetrical maps are more for meeting engagements and dont work to will in the other two kinds of battles.

I'm fully on board for symetry as it is clearly fair, but is that ideal?

Like above, it all depinds on the type of engagement.


I'm working on a map right now that has a big river bend in it. The infantry can cross it, but tanks would need barges. The bend occupies the northern-middle area. I'm trying to force some duel game to occur, where the mobile units fight for position around the bend while the infantry you choose to send across the river has to fight with whatever the opponent sends across...

Good idea if your planning on useing the map for a scenario, but if its for people to use in their random battles you got to remember that its inpossable to force players to do anything. Weapons and tactics you might use is not what someone els would do. If I had to fight a meeting engegement on a map with a large river with no bredges, I would setup a defince and not even try and cross the river. If my oppanent then try and cross he would be reeped to peaces.

[Tombstone]

Good idea if your planning on useing the map for a scenario, but if its for people to use in their random battles you got to remember that its inpossable to force players to do anything. Weapons and tactics you might use is not what someone els would do. If I had to fight a meeting engegement on a map with a large river with no bredges, I would setup a defince and not even try and cross the river. If my oppanent then try and cross he would be reeped to peaces.

I disagree, I think you can force the players to do things. They want to win, so if you make the conditions of the scenario such that there are clear options that relate directly toward the objective hexes then the player will choose one. This river bend makes a U shape that cuts a large part of the map away from both players. Many of the objectives are on that cut away portion of land...

Tomo

[cb]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
I think a discussion of areas for improvement in the armor system could be done in a professional an unemotional manner, Claus. That you think otherwise is unfortunate.

Well, I tried commenting on a rather badly worded post by Wild Bill and on the fact that random terrain can be made both challenging and varied.

Neither comment was a criticism of SPW@W or any of its features. Still I had two Matrix employees in my throat in no time. Regarding the "unemotional" bit, take a look at WBWs August 27, 2000 03:04 PM post - you call that "unemotional"? The guy is clearly incapable of handling criticism.

A discussion of the armour system in SPW@W will of course have to touch upon good things and bad things and while I am shure that Matrix will happily suck up any positive comments, a critical comment from someone who has playtested for "the other game" is clearly NOT welcome.

"Unemotional" discussion about SPW@W features between yours truly and Matrix employees is not something that I "think" is impossible - it is proven impossible by the emotional and rabid outbursts by Matrix employees against justified and mildly worded criticism of your promotional efforts (WBWs original post).

So if you want to have a real discussion of SPW@W features, you have to persuade Matrix not to unleash the dogs on anyone associated with "the other game".

Claus B

[David Heath]

Claus your statement is just untrue and an attack! Its actions like this that cause us to quit SPWW2. Anyone can is welcomed to comment or dislike anything on this forum or SPWaW. Many of our changes have been because of what the gamers have said they disliked about the game or their new ideas. Matrix Games has been one of the most "Listen To The People" companies in a long time. The problem Claus is that its the same idea of having a SSI staff member go over to the Talonsoft message board and leave messages blasting one of it games. We have do very well with supporting SPWaW and the gamers who play our games. SPWaW has done 57,000+ downloads and SPWW2 less then a 1,000. This does not mean SPWW2 is bad game but I can see the staff of the game getting a little short temper with us.

Gamers I am sorry you had to put up with these type of messges. We try to delete only the truly of the wall posts. We want you to please feel free to say and write anything you want about our games. We are listing and we do care. I hope our games and the valid posts on this forum shows this. We take this type of attack by Claus very personally and will not stand for someone bending the truth.

We do like to hear good words over bad about our game, who wouldn't. But we also like to take the bad comments and try to turn them around into good comments by either fixing the problem or making a new feature.

Now back to what Matrix Games is all about....... gaming!


[This message has been edited by David Heath (edited September 05, 2000).]

[sami heimola]

Well said, David! I play both games (SPWAW and SPWW2v3) and I love them. It's sad that some SP-players/makers/testers(Claus for example ) want to defame every way Matrix's staff and games. It's so unfair.Is it Matrix's fault if SPWW2v3 was been downloaded only 1000 times (or lesser)? I don't think so. And either anyone else in this Forum, I suppose? I can't ever stop to wonder that "we vs them"-thing... Only God knows how great wargames we have if all SP-teams/companies could be in co-operation...

Anyway, you and Matrix's guys are kings of wargaming. It's a fact! Don't take those childish comments TOO seriously (at least let them affect to your creativity)!

BTW, what's a situation of V.4? Tomorrow or later?

Sami

Originally posted by David Heath:
Claus your statement is just untrue! Its actions like this that cause us to quit SPWW2. Anyone can is welcomed to comment or dislike anything on this forum even SPWaW. Many of our changes have been because of what you the gamers have said they disliked about the game. Matrix Games has been one of the most "Listen To The People" companies in a long time. The problem Claus is that its like having a SSI staff member go over to the Talonsoft message board and leave messages blasting one of it games. We have do very well with supporting SPWaW and the gamers who play our games. SPWaW has done 57,000+ downloads and SPWW2 less then a 1,000. This does not mean SPWW2 is bad but can make the staff of the game a little short. What it also shows is that your statement is untrue and attack at us.

Gamers I am sorry you had to put up with this type of messges. We try to delete only truly of the wall posts. We want you to please feel free to say and write anything you want about our games we are listing and we do care. The changes you see in our games and our support will show this. We take this type of attack by Claus very personally.

We do like to hear good words over bad about our game, who wouldn't. But we also like to take the bad comments and try to turn them around into a good comment by fixing the problem or making a new feature.

Now back to what Matrix Games is all about....... gaming!

[Nikademus]

well for me its a new feature.....i tried once to load a custom map for a generated battle and found myself tech challenged for the incidient so kudios to the Matrix team for making it more easy to access

and i had till now never heard of a way to do it during a campaign!

[Tombstone]

1000 times? That's a tragedy, there simply needs to be more awareness of SPWW2 ver3. Its a very good game. Something people should bear in mind is that this is the SPWAW forum... its madness to think that this will NOT be a SPWAW-centric zone. It doesn't take much to get people defensive about what they're passionate about... If one's aim was to convince or educate then it would be especially important to be delicate and civil when walking on their territory. That is, of course, only relevant if one's aim was to have a real effect...

Anyways, I'm getting really anxious to get v4... My whole SPWAW effort has been shipwrecked on the island of 'soon it will be better' What exactly are the rules with respect to the boulder hexes??

Tomo

[McGib]

Don't apologize for the posts David. They are not the fault of Matrix. This type of thing (IMHO)have a positive benefit; they let people, vets and newbies, who come to this forum that negative posts are ok. By that I mean posts on how to improve the game, bug reports, requests for additions etc etc. They don't include posts that are attacks at the game, the company or its staff.

------------------
McGib
Ready Aye Ready