Coupla Questions

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Wed Apr 26, 2000 6:06 pm

Hey,
Glad to see that one of my old favorites is being reborn. I'll definitely have to get this. I have a few questions.
1. From what I've seen, I think the answer is yes, but have the unit descriptions been redone? In SP1 many were subliterate (spelling, grammar, and factual errors).
2. Again, I think the answer here is yes, because I get the strong impression that there's been a real effort to put out a quality product, but I'll ask. Have the OOB's been redone/expanded? There were a few mistakes in SP1 (countries having vehicles they never had) and most of the small countries seemed cookie-cutter.
3. Why not use the real Yugoslav flag? Or put the coat of arms on Romania's? I know...picky, picky

4. How exactly will the downloading be handled? How can we get it if we don't have an internet connection for the computer we want to use it on?
Thanks for bringing it back!

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Thu Apr 27, 2000 1:11 am

The OOBs have been completely redone. We have tried to give the minor countries some personality, but trying to do complete OOBs of every country remotely in the war in a couple months - even with lots of folks lending a hand, only gets at the tip of the iceberg.

We have made a major effort to ensure the major powers are as good as we can get them, some of the minors will still be rough around the edges...

One could devote their life to the details of representing the company and below TO&E of every country in the war, and likely never get concesus on a great many issues!

We look forward to hearing from you folks and plan at least one OOB patch prior to the release of the magazine CD's.

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Thu Apr 27, 2000 1:49 am

Glad to hear it! Actually, I could happily live with inaccurate unit structure, as long as the equipment and vehicles are right. I'm sure trying to figure out the organization of a Greek reserve infantry battalion, etc. would be a real bear.
How about maybe a list of unit types for us to drool/squabble over? What sort of suggestions for additions might you accept? what sort of references would we have to give for our suggestions? I'm speaking more here about vehicles and equipment, not unit structures. I wouldn't want to flood you with trivial suggestions about some pistol that the Chinese made 10 of or whatever, but I would like to know where a suggestion would stop being annoying, and start being useful.

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Thu Apr 27, 2000 3:18 am

You'll have to wait for the game--mainly becasue I'll be working bugs out of them right up until the the 11:59:59 and likely will still have to caveat some minors as "use at your own risk".

When the game is released send me input directly as I will have a file on user input. I don't intend on putting out OOB patches every 2 weeks, basically saving them up for a big one just before the magazine CD comes. The editor is included so folks can suit themselves as far as OOBs go... After a month or two most of the obvious mistakes should be addressed, after that it becomes largely opinion on when a certain unit should be introduced or withdrawn or what armor a certain unit should have.

Its just not possible to get then perfect... that is so subjective!

No matter what you do, someone will cite a reference that disagrees with something ...sometimes its worth fixing, other times sources guinuinely conflict.

Despite what some think, History is not an exact science...

Big.Toe · Post by **Big.Toe** » Thu Apr 27, 2000 7:20 am

I don't want to start a flame war or anything, but isn't playability and fun more important than nit picking about what some people might consider 'minor' details?

Recon_slith · Post by **Recon_slith** » Thu Apr 27, 2000 1:26 pm

The trouble is that the terms playability, fun and minor are all relative- a movable feast that everyone sees differently.
Small example:
When I was playing a long campaign in SP1 as the Soviets versus the Finns during the Winter War some long while ago I was unexpectedly assaulted by a Brigade or so of French built Renault tanks. Literally dozens of them- they were everywhere. The Finns never had this many so it was obvious that the AI had picked an 'Armour heavy' force with the only AFV it had available, regardless that the Finns could never have fielded such a force due to lack of sufficent vehicles. I massacred them of course (but that's beside the point, or is it?).
How would such a flaw effect (a) playability (b) enjoyment and (c) be considered minor or not? I have my own ideas but I'm not telling. This is a fairly straightforward example but I bet that total agreement is rather unlikely.
Any opinions?

------------------
Wait for Death. There's a choice?
Recon

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Thu Apr 27, 2000 6:08 pm

Well of course playability and fun are foremost. But why not have your cake and eat it too? The whole point of my post was that I didn't want to seem like a nitpicker, and only wanted to provide useful requests for new items, units, etc. To quote you "...that some people might consider minor details." Some people. Some people will throw fits and trash the game for not including the proper organizational table of a Dutch field kitchen. Some people, myself included, really don't care too much about unit structure, but would really like to see some admittedly obscure AFV (such as the Yugoslav T-32, is that in the game?). I don't see why we shouldn't ask for things, as long as 1) It doesn't overcomplicate the game so as to ruin the average users enjoyment, 2) It isn't viewed as irritating by the designers. I know they've put a whole ton of hard work into the game, and don't want to appear ungrateful (In fact, I'm jealous.) but if something seems to be missing, I might ask for it.

[This message has been edited by Seth (edited 04-27-2000).]

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Thu Apr 27, 2000 11:40 pm

I don't find any input irritating that is done constructively. But input has to be prioritized and not every input can be acted upon.

My goals have been to offer a wide variety of equipment and organizations. Increasing the fidelity of teh Armor combat is a twin edged sword, the major countries play more accurately becasue slope and armor of Shermans, Panthers, et,al are fairly well documented (but open to judgement in effect). Find me the slope and armor of a T-32 and I'll be glad to put it in. Many such things are in with my best guess" armor and slope, but its tough if you can't even find a photo!

The point of the game is not to be a definitive compilation of TO&E. But offer REASONABLY authentic forces for players to engage in the "game world". We feel its better than any other SP game out there, but is far from perfect or "realistic".

Where we can offer historical accuracy, we try our best to give it, but there are too many unknowns to claim a 100% accurate TO&E, let alone claim to have modeled every unit to perfection! There is a point of dimishing returns where "perfect accuracy" ceases to be distinguishable from "good enough" in game terms.

We are committed to improving the game, but unless folks want to wait years for us to polish the canonball, we have to say "send it" at some point when we feel it is substantially intact. The editor is there, and if my lack of knowledge of Yugoslav tanks spoils the game for you - crank it up and add them in! We have the Major powers well represented, and the minor powers range from pretty good to "I just don't know any better".

I'm sure I'll get mail that there are things that are "all screwed up" we can either sit an other wise ready game so the OOBs can be groomed for the next 6 months, or let the game out, let folks enjoy the "GAME" aspect while the accuracy of some of the OOBs evolve over time.

I have focused on teh majorpowers and I get mail everyday from playtesters on some aspect to improve, but I don't see delaying the game further becasue of dotting the I's and crossing the T's of historical accuracy in the OOBs, while most folks can be having fun with them! The grognards will let me know I'm sure, and they can be fixed over the summer:-)

In a "for pay" game my philosophy would be different, but SP:WaW, LIke SP:WW2 before it will continue to evolve, if teh support warrants it.

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Fri Apr 28, 2000 12:07 am

I didn't mean to imply that anything piddly like I was talking about would spoil the game. I certainly wouldn't want to delay its release, or suggest that it was necessary. Really, this game is a dream come true, and even the fact that you can play as the Japanese, much less any minors, puts it well ahead of anything else. If you actually would like the data on the T-32, I'll dig it up this weekend. I was really kind of joking though.

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Fri Apr 28, 2000 12:26 am

I'm just using your post as an opportunity to let folks know my philosophy! You have been most courteous, Seth and I appreciate your input!

Even in the playtest process I was stuck between the "this whole thing is completely useless becasue Belgravian HQs had TWO radios and the T-97 was only avialable for 3 months in 1942" and the calls for more "what-if" and "fantasy" units for doing "Patton invaded Russia in 1948 and an M4A5 sherman and T-34/100 would have been available.

I tried to walk the tight rope between them, likely pleasing neither camp, but I hope providing the mainstream gamer decent (but not perfect) historical accuracy, and some interesting options - the editors allow one to "go wild" if they wish.

I can't guarnetee anything you send will get in teh game, but I'll stick it in my file

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Fri Apr 28, 2000 12:31 am

Glad I wasn't being misunderstood. I'll get you all the info I can on the T-32. Basically it's a cute little SP Gun they bought from the Czechs.

nikb · Post by **nikb** » Fri Apr 28, 2000 12:54 am

I still pinch myself - is this really going to be free...it all seems too good to be true.

Roll on the 8th.

Nik

[This message has been edited by nikb (edited 04-27-2000).]

Big.Toe · Post by **Big.Toe** » Fri Apr 28, 2000 2:20 am

Recon, I reckon the game you played would have been 'fun', but 'some people' might have been upset about the idea of the Finns have so many tanks. I'm not one to get hung up on details, 'minor' or not. If the game plays well, and it's enjoyable, fantastic (and it sounds like it will be).

troopie · Post by **troopie** » Fri Apr 28, 2000 5:22 am

I am not worried about minor countries OOBs not being one hundred per centum correct. There are plenty of SP fans who have the necessary knowledge. They will supply the corrections. And for the quibble "The game is useless because Belgravian HQ units had two radios and not one." There is an OOB editor bundled with the game, if you MUST have a Belgravian HQ, or you MUST give your Marmon crews Stens, you can,.

troopie

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:59 pm

Paul,
I was just about to write and ask where to send the info I find, but I re-read the posts and have a few questions. First off, you said you were going to have a file for submissions once you release the game. Would you rather I waited? Second, you say that there's an editor. I imagine that it's like the editor in SP1. The question is, will we be able to modify the graphics, or just the data? In SP1, you had to find a vehicle that looked kind of like yours, if there was one. Will we be able to save modified vehicles into the game, or just use them in one scenario?