Improvements for SPWAW 5.0 :-)

[Harry]

Hi

I have posted a similar message some time ago but here it comes again.

Wishes:

1. Increase the probability of vehiclebreakdowns when moving through wood terrain. You can still move your tanks and halftracks at highspeed through woods.
If you only can move very careful through like one hex a turn, then this will lead to new tactics. And I think they are more "realistic". You really need roads or open space for your tanks. The enemy knows that and he will set up ambushes, and you know that there are ambushes aso.

This leads to point two:
2. What about new terraintypes? Light Wood, Heavy Wood, Scattered Trees. aso.

3. Remove the asterix!

4. More national characteristics. eg. German face a higher probability of weaponbreakdown and vehiclebreakdown in snow terrain with blizzard or something like that.

5. Add dud-ammo for bombs, artilleryshells, HE-shells, Panzerfaust, HEAT, aso. Maybe AT-Rounds also.

6. Well, more consistent OOBs. (in progress I know)


This is only a small wish list, but there are more people out there.

[skukko]

Why should you take asterisk away? I know there is more on this topic, but: I really use it to decoy. I let enemy see my killers and I let enemy to choose either fire everything on it or let it be. Fire it takes is away from weaker/important unit. Don't you see that this is reality.

But I would like to have dogs in to the game for recon-units, guards etc. They were used to find mines, enemy ambushes and so on..

Movement is awesome. But it can be reduced by filling forests and dirt roads with rocks.
mosh

[Tombstone]

It's still unrealistic, and it hurts the fog of war. It's not right to allow a player access to information he has no context to have.

Tomo

[Charles22]

skukko: I've suggested satchel-charge dogs in the game, and for some reason it hasn't caught on. I even made a few satchel-charge dog jokes and that still didn't carry the day . I might've even volunteered my white Siberian Husky as the satchel-charge dog mascot and still nothing .

[Harry]

Please no asterix discussion here...
go here: http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/003463.html

[This message has been edited by Harry (edited December 29, 2000).]

[chrisdolphinfan]

The main thing I would like to see, is for
the "End of turn key and the end of game key"
to be seperated. Too many games have been
ended by hitting the wrong key and not realizing it. Great game!!!

[Kharan]

If you crazy guys really are planning a new version...

Bugs:
-Guns should lose their shots after moving.
-Fix low artillery smoke loadouts in online play.
-Surrendering player shouldn't get points for his victory hexes.
-Hide the arrival turn of special forces in deploy phase to prevent cheating.
-Fix 4-player online games from freezing up

Opinion bugs:
-Halve the weapon breakdown rate and/or fasten repairs.
-Triple the CBF effect.
-Reduce ammo on heavy artillery batteries or up their prices.
-Remove the spidey sense (*)

[Gallo Rojo]

Originally posted by Tombstone:
It's still unrealistic, and it hurts the fog of war. It's not right to allow a player access to information he has no context to have.

Tomo

I think that a unit that beings spotted by the enemy had to pass a “experience” check before the “*” be shown. Although Asterisk is unrealistic in some way and makes ambushes very difficult against human opponents (except in woods or cities), I think but is a good idea that needs a little more work on it.

The asterisk try to capture the idea that the unit could heard something (a tank column, voices or some like this) or “feels” some thing strange that indicate the enemy is closer . My idea is that this have to be related to the unit experience. I can understand that a veteran can “smell” the enemy, but I don’t believe that a green soldier can do so. And of course there’re some really unrealistic things about it: I remember to had a tank marked with an asterisk because it was spotted by a panzerfaust that was 18 hexes far away. This is to much!! May be the asterisk have to appear on a infantry unit when a tank is 3 hexes or closer although infantry can’t see it, in order to capture the idea that the infantry hears tank’s engine. I don’t know. There just some ideas...

[Charles22]

Kharen: On your idea about special forces. I think that this perhaps again goes back to the problems people often encounter when playing against other humans, that people will get gamey in order to win. But playing from a campaigner's perspective I would suggest the modification of your request to 'optional' masking of the arrival times instead. I've never known of the way to get gamey with the special forces, and though I did read it once, I ignored it and have been the better for it.

The way I see it, this platoon will all be going together, assuming you're putting them within CC of each other at their infiltration point. As a campaigner, I need to know just when the first squad will see his buddies arrive, or else the infiltration is greatly compromised (his buddies could never arrive, or arrive too late contribute to the battle's overall effort). I know first instinct is probably to think that the first one there, wouldn't know when the others would arrive, but particularly if they have radios (I think the German commandos have a 90% rating there) the ones who find out they can't make it would radio that. As well, I would think there would be a number of occassions where they would at least try to stay within eyesight of each other (maybe just waving a hand over a bush and so on).

I like the rest of your ideas, particularly the one about some way to limit the big artillery. I recall earlier versions actually had smaller ammunition stores for those units, generally speaking. I suppose people parking supply units by the artillery still would pose a problem however, but it seems most of the big stuff is off-map, therefore no resupply.

On another note. You mentioned the breakdown rate. When I was playing Watchword Freedom, the breakdown rate wasn't too bad. That of course is a winter '44 battle as the Germans. Well, I kicked off a WWII campaign the other day as Gerry, and to compare it to WF, the breakdown rate was VERY high. My conclusion is that the breakdown rates are higher in '39, than they are in '44. It makes sense to me, because the armies were dealing with some fairly new ideas and equipment early on, but got more organized later. I could be wrong of course. Maybe it's just the early portion of the war that needs adjusting (and perhaps tweaking the latter portion less so)?

[Kharan]

Charles22: The problem with special forces is that when you assign them in deploy phase, the arrival turn is shown in lower left screen and unit data screen. If it is T99, they will never arrive, and a player can cancel and reassign them.

Solution would be to hide the arrival turn only in deploy phase and show it in the actual battle or not to rerandomize the arrival turn when reassigned.

The weapon breakdown issue is a evasive one... On several battles I've lost half my tank guns in the first engagement, yet in testing it seems to occur rarely. It could be a lot of opportunity fire that is increasing the chances greatly.

Anyway, I'd go for faster weapon repair times. I don't think I've ever seen a weapon getting repaired, as opposed to a lot of immobility repairs which infact should take more time.

[Charles22]

Kharan: One could always not cancel the infiltration (now I know how to do it, what a spoiler). Anyway, you sure have fine-honed your request, just masking it in deployment solves the problem. The only problem might be for scenario designers, that is if they really want a 100% infiltration, but still have to go with the random factor, but then again, scenario designers can probably place anything, anywhere they want, to even deal
with this commando thing.

We're agreeing 100%, I too prefer a higher repair rate, more specifically to the weapons, than tinkering with the breakdown rate. I wonder if the early war years do see higher breakdown rates? It would also be interesting if the repair rate were increased, that it would be further increased if the vehicle were unspotted (which would encourage moving vehicles to some rear place). OTOH, for my perspective, I have to remember that though something may sound neat, to me, the individual, just how would such an option affect the AI? I doubt the AI would be willing to go to the rear, therefore giving me one more unneeded advantage.

[Charles22]

Kharan: One could always not cancel the infiltration (now I know how to do it, what a spoiler). Anyway, you sure have fine-honed your request, just masking it in deployment solves the problem. The only problem might be for scenario designers, that is if they really want a 100% infiltration, but still have to go with the random factor, but then again, scenario designers can probably place anything, anywhere they want, to even deal
with this commando thing.

We're agreeing 100%, I too prefer a higher repair rate, more specifically to the weapons, than tinkering with the breakdown rate. I wonder if the early war years do see higher breakdown rates? It would also be interesting if the repair rate were increased, that it would be further increased if the vehicle were unspotted (which would encourage moving vehicles to some rear place). OTOH, for my perspective, I have to remember that though something may sound neat, to me, the individual, just how would such an option affect the AI? I doubt the AI would be willing to go to the rear, therefore giving me one more unneeded advantage.

[Cona]

If we are talking about SPWAW 5.0, the VCR should be improved too. Sighted enemy units must be shown by the VCR, and the path they followed.
This way, you can do a good guess about the final destination of the unit. And you can simulate an attack to fool your enemy.

Feliz Año Nuevo a todos,
Cona.

[skukko]

Cona: Maybe if the game is going to be Online. Full.

But afterall we all think so slow that we'll have to have one game that ain't such 'Red Alert' copy? Or what are we talking? As a future of this game I'll like to have it as it is, but bugs fixed. I don't want another 'rush 'em all' game from this one. It goes to the woods. I know that in the WW2 there were volunteers asked to go first to be seen, so that other could move safely to better positions. Without the asterisk we can build a game that is merely like 'Sudden Strike' or some of that kind. This is not because of asterisk, but whole *ucking future and development of this Great Game. Bugs can be fixed? Yes. How far can The game be enhanced without turning it to something that looses its ability to live in our, gamers, hands?

Guys have done great job on their own time to get this 4.5 so far to our hands. From the first Matrix release it has been just bug -war, and I mean it in good mind. We can ask them to fix one or two bug, but before asking it, we should ask: Do we demand a new game? Forgive me to get heat on this, but I'm that kind of a guy who sometimes think futher that understand. Some one just had to say this out.

mosh

[Blackbird]

Well, Kharan did mention all of most important things, except for this:

Originally posted by Harry:
1. Increase the probability of vehiclebreakdowns when moving through wood terrain. You can still move your tanks and halftracks at highspeed through woods.

That would be cool, but as I can see the probability of vehicle breakdowns is not connected to speed of them. And it should be, mostly at max speeds.

[Harry]

Hi Skukko.

This thread is not intended to force someone to do a new version tomorrow. This is intended to give ideas for future improvements and when it take a year to do them or never. I can wait. No one will minimize the major effort done by the matix team and their helpers.
And when one day matrix do not want to contionue to support this game then there will be other gamers that want to continue their work if they are allowed to do that.
And when on one day the bugs are eliminated then you will think "how can this game developed further?" then it is time for new ideas. This ideas may come form this forum.
There are so much potential people out there and when this code would be free, we can all profit form them. An "extreme" example is the guy who unterstand and improved the stolen source code from Falcon 4.0.
So since Matrix has the code we have to tell them our ideas and wishes.

Herwig

[Cona]

Originally posted by skukko:
Guys have done great job on their own time to get this 4.5 so far to our hands. From the first Matrix release it has been just bug -war, and I mean it in good mind. We can ask them to fix one or two bug, but before asking it, we should ask: Do we demand a new game? Forgive me to get heat on this, but I'm that kind of a guy who sometimes think futher that understand. Some one just had to say this out.

Skukko: I used to be a programmer, so i know well of the effort that the boys of Matrix are making so that we enjoy this wonderful game.
But this topic is kind of a brainstorm where to contribute ideas for what each one believes will be a better SPWAW.
When I play PBEM (and I have not played a lot) I can always see (in the version 4.5) the exchanges of shots between my units and the enemy, but I cannot see the enemy units moving it faces of mine neither to know that they made it although they have been seen by several of my units if they begin and they finish their movement in some hexagon where they are hidden to the eyes of my troops. Do you understand me? It is for this reason that I think that the VCR should be improved.

Each idea that each one contributes here, can and should be a contribution to the future games that Matrix develops or improve. It is our duty to reward Matrix contributing ideas (and money, in an unknown future) and it is responsibility of Matrix to write down them and to consider them in each opportunity. That's how i see this. I may be wrong.

Happy new year to all,
Cona.


[This message has been edited by Cona (edited December 30, 2000).]

[FatFred]

good input .
The Thing I agree with you most is the astrick part .. How real is it to be moving your forces and say oh Ive been spotted I better move more carefull until I find out whats spotting me .
you shouldn't know your spotted until you have been shot at , or have been destroyed by that ambush you never expected to be there
fatfred

[Christophe Jaureguiberry]

I would like to have more elevation levels. In fact, I'd like to have free (no restrictions) elevation levels. For example, instead of having three buttons for level 1,2 and 3, we could have only an elevation "+" and elevation "-" button. Additonally by pressing one of these 2 buttons, we could also input directly the desired elevation (right-click on "+", type 55 and voila). This would enable us to create scenarios in mountainous terrain.

Regards,

Christophe

[David Heath]

Hi Guys

The staff and myself read these and all the forums at Matrix everyday. Your ideas and request are what we work on. Now I have no problem with asking for new features but I want to point out to Skukko that it has not been just bug fixes since its release of v4.0. We have added or adjusted many of the games features as well as fix a number of bugs. So keep the requests flying and we keep plugging away.

David